With only around 500 billionaires in the country

[Papageorgio]

Point you are dishonest by omission. Just clarifying your attempted deception. Have a good night.

No I didn't lie at all. I was responding to someone who clearly thinks the republicans are the answer so I pointed out they are part of the problem. Stop wasting my time with pointless questions.

You were dishonest and you tried to pull one over, nice try, move on and quit wasting bandwidth.

No, you simply aren't very smart and didn't understand my point. You realize I'm independant right? Nowhere in this thread have I said anything good about democrats.

You aren't an independent, you are a liberal, you maybe stupid enough to fool yourself but not me. My intelligence isn't at question. Your honesty is. Nice to try to turn it, pathetic but coming from you it's a given.

Strawman.
You are a Portfolio Conservative through and through and have sold your soul to one of the two corrupt parties.
Someone like myself does not see criticism of one Party as an endorsement of the other Party.

You go with that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Point you are dishonest by omission. Just clarifying your attempted deception. Have a good night.

No I didn't lie at all. I was responding to someone who clearly thinks the republicans are the answer so I pointed out they are part of the problem. Stop wasting my time with pointless questions.

You were dishonest and you tried to pull one over, nice try, move on and quit wasting bandwidth.

No, you simply aren't very smart and didn't understand my point. You realize I'm independant right? Nowhere in this thread have I said anything good about democrats.

You aren't an independent, you are a liberal, you maybe stupid enough to fool yourself but not me. My intelligence isn't at question. Your honesty is. Nice to try to turn it, pathetic but coming from you it's a given.

Sure kid. If that makes you feel better. I really don't like any politicians. The last one I recall liking was Ron Paul.

I didn't like Paul. A little off the mark but he was better than Obama, Romney and especially McCain, how that idiot got the nomination I'll never know. I usually like third party candidates. We need to break Wall St. and Congress' unholy alignment.

 

[Brain357]

No I didn't lie at all. I was responding to someone who clearly thinks the republicans are the answer so I pointed out they are part of the problem. Stop wasting my time with pointless questions.

You were dishonest and you tried to pull one over, nice try, move on and quit wasting bandwidth.

No, you simply aren't very smart and didn't understand my point. You realize I'm independant right? Nowhere in this thread have I said anything good about democrats.

You aren't an independent, you are a liberal, you maybe stupid enough to fool yourself but not me. My intelligence isn't at question. Your honesty is. Nice to try to turn it, pathetic but coming from you it's a given.

Sure kid. If that makes you feel better. I really don't like any politicians. The last one I recall liking was Ron Paul.

I didn't like Paul. A little off the mark but he was better than Obama, Romney and especially McCain, how that idiot got the nomination I'll never know. I usually like third party candidates. We need to break Wall St. and Congress' unholy alignment.

I can agree with that.

 

[bripat9643]

How are the CEO's hurting the country?

Replacing workers with immigrants. Increasing inequality and slowing the economy. Shipping jobs to other countries.

Democrats are the ones replacing American workers immigrants that. They have fought tooth and nail every attempt to control illegal immigration. The idea the CEOs or Republicans are to blame doesn't pass the laugh test.

You are talking about really cheap labor. I'm talking about the workers ceos are bringing in from places like India. I already posted links.

They bring in those workers to keep costs down. If they keep costs down, YOU will buy their products and services.

Not just you of course, we all will. Nobody is going to pay more money for products or services from all American workers when there are cheaper alternatives.

They keep doing that and yet prices really aren't going down are they? The money just goes to the pockets of the very rich. Meanwhile the country is hurt by the stagnant wages and slow economy.

Prices never go down when the Fed is printing money like there's no tomorrow. They just don't go up as fast as the would otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

No I didn't lie at all. I was responding to someone who clearly thinks the republicans are the answer so I pointed out they are part of the problem. Stop wasting my time with pointless questions.

You were dishonest and you tried to pull one over, nice try, move on and quit wasting bandwidth.

No, you simply aren't very smart and didn't understand my point. You realize I'm independant right? Nowhere in this thread have I said anything good about democrats.

You aren't an independent, you are a liberal, you maybe stupid enough to fool yourself but not me. My intelligence isn't at question. Your honesty is. Nice to try to turn it, pathetic but coming from you it's a given.

Sure kid. If that makes you feel better. I really don't like any politicians. The last one I recall liking was Ron Paul.

I didn't like Paul. A little off the mark but he was better than Obama, Romney and especially McCain, how that idiot got the nomination I'll never know. I usually like third party candidates. We need to break Wall St. and Congress' unholy alignment.

McCain got the nomination because Huckabee siphoned off all the evangelical votes. I despise that buffoon even more than I despise McCain.

 

[Papageorgio]

You were dishonest and you tried to pull one over, nice try, move on and quit wasting bandwidth.

No, you simply aren't very smart and didn't understand my point. You realize I'm independant right? Nowhere in this thread have I said anything good about democrats.

You aren't an independent, you are a liberal, you maybe stupid enough to fool yourself but not me. My intelligence isn't at question. Your honesty is. Nice to try to turn it, pathetic but coming from you it's a given.

Sure kid. If that makes you feel better. I really don't like any politicians. The last one I recall liking was Ron Paul.

I didn't like Paul. A little off the mark but he was better than Obama, Romney and especially McCain, how that idiot got the nomination I'll never know. I usually like third party candidates. We need to break Wall St. and Congress' unholy alignment.

McCain got the nomination because Huckabee siphoned off all the evangelical votes. I despise that buffoon even more than I despise McCain.

Huckabee is an odd one. I like him at times but other times he opens his mouth and I think WTF?

 

[bripat9643]

No, you simply aren't very smart and didn't understand my point. You realize I'm independant right? Nowhere in this thread have I said anything good about democrats.

You aren't an independent, you are a liberal, you maybe stupid enough to fool yourself but not me. My intelligence isn't at question. Your honesty is. Nice to try to turn it, pathetic but coming from you it's a given.

Sure kid. If that makes you feel better. I really don't like any politicians. The last one I recall liking was Ron Paul.

I didn't like Paul. A little off the mark but he was better than Obama, Romney and especially McCain, how that idiot got the nomination I'll never know. I usually like third party candidates. We need to break Wall St. and Congress' unholy alignment.

McCain got the nomination because Huckabee siphoned off all the evangelical votes. I despise that buffoon even more than I despise McCain.

Huckabee is an odd one. I like him at times but other times he opens his mouth and I think WTF?

That's because he's an idiot. Being all over the map is the sign of an idiot.

 

[Jackson]

Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?

Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.

I hate to say it, but you remind me of an immature teenager who wants a car (at parent's expense), all insurance paid (at parent's expense) and have them pay for your gas to get around. The thought of getting a job never entered your head, or if it did, you'd scream, "No way! I'm entitled!" Those rich bastards have nothing to do with your happiness. You have to decide one of these days that you get out of life what you put in. Now get that damn job and make something of yourself. And stop complaining.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

Tax breaks. Taxes for the richest keep declining. Most of them have also had great advantages over normal folks. Just look at the kochs, Waltons and trump.

And now I will have to ask you to define "taxes keep declining", since I know perfectly well you're not talking about the rates OR the amount of tax spending they shoulder. I'm guessing you're referring to the percentage of their income, since lefties are all obsessed with the "horror" of people not having their wealth confiscated.

As for the Kochs, Waltons, and Trump, they have access to the exact same laws and benefits everyone else has access to. Do they have more reason to access some of them than others? Sure. But the same could be said for other tax brackets. It's just that other tax brackets aren't as enviable to be in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

In a new report, Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective, the IMF aims to show why policymakers need to focus more on the poor and the middle class. The report determined that income inequality and income distribution matter for growth and its sustainability in a country.

To blame for the rising inequalities are a few different factors, which differ whether in emerging markets or developed economies. Technological progress that led to higher salaries and resulted in some labor market declines, is a big factor in both types of economies and globalization has also reinforced the trend.

It also found that when the income share of the top 20% increases, the country’s GDP declines over the medium term. On the other hand, GDP growth is associated with income increase among the poorest 20% of the population.

IMF study on income inequality - Business Insider

Have yet to see anything in any of the blather you've produced to prove that rich people having money is the problem.

 

[Brain357]

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

 

[Brain357]

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

In a new report, Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective, the IMF aims to show why policymakers need to focus more on the poor and the middle class. The report determined that income inequality and income distribution matter for growth and its sustainability in a country.

To blame for the rising inequalities are a few different factors, which differ whether in emerging markets or developed economies. Technological progress that led to higher salaries and resulted in some labor market declines, is a big factor in both types of economies and globalization has also reinforced the trend.

It also found that when the income share of the top 20% increases, the country’s GDP declines over the medium term. On the other hand, GDP growth is associated with income increase among the poorest 20% of the population.

IMF study on income inequality - Business Insider

Have yet to see anything in any of the blather you've produced to prove that rich people having money is the problem.

So I provide you with several studies and that is your weak response?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

And I've proven to you that there are thousands of jobs out there, but it's difficult to make a point when somebody has the palms of their hands against their ears and sings aloud.

 

[Brain357]

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

And I've proven to you that there are thousands of jobs out there, but it's difficult to make a point when somebody has the palms of their hands against their ears and sings aloud.

You showed there are jobs available with decreasing wages and questionable safety. That really isn't a big opportunity for anyone. Why can't you understand that? If there were lots of great jobs going unfilled wages wouldn't be stagnant.

 

[danielpalos]

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

And I've proven to you that there are thousands of jobs out there, but it's difficult to make a point when somebody has the palms of their hands against their ears and sings aloud.

thousands of unfilled positions is relatively meaningless under any form of capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

The jobs are all going to illegal aliens thanks to Democrats.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are the CEO's hurting the country?

Replacing workers with immigrants. Increasing inequality and slowing the economy. Shipping jobs to other countries.

Democrats are the ones replacing American workers immigrants that. They have fought tooth and nail every attempt to control illegal immigration. The idea the CEOs or Republicans are to blame doesn't pass the laugh test.

You are talking about really cheap labor. I'm talking about the workers ceos are bringing in from places like India. I already posted links.

They bring in those workers to keep costs down. If they keep costs down, YOU will buy their products and services.

Not just you of course, we all will. Nobody is going to pay more money for products or services from all American workers when there are cheaper alternatives.

Please detail how Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Facebook, Google, etc... have used H1-Bs to hold down prices.
Oracle and IBM are pretty much irrelevant to the average person these days and practically all MS products have quadrupled in price without adding much value.
Facebook and Google have products free of charge whether they like it or not and what has Google accomplished besides a Search Engine that was already mature prior to their H1-B influx.

If you go outside of the technology world you see what's going on in the blue collar world.

In my industry for instance they are hiring foreigners like they are going out of style. They are willing to work for nothing so that keeps wages down. You can't get Americans to do the work, they have their Obama phones and SNAP's cards.

What we really need to do in this country is close down our borders; not only to illegals, but to legals as well, at least until we have a stable economy and wage growth. We need to cut down these social programs drastically so that living comfortably is not an option. Make it so work pays more than social programs which is not the case in many instances today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

And I've proven to you that there are thousands of jobs out there, but it's difficult to make a point when somebody has the palms of their hands against their ears and sings aloud.

thousands of unfilled positions is relatively meaningless under any form of capitalism.

No, as I was explaining to Independent, thousands of unfilled positions mean nothing when there are better options such as living on the dole. Take that option away and it gives people no choice but to work. That's the way we did it years ago.

In the early 80's I found myself out of work. Social programs didn't pay squat and those that were on them really had to stretch to make it. I myself had several jobs including a full time job, a part-time job, and a job for the weekends.

Nobody wants to work seven days a week and then some when you're younger, but when you don't have much of a choice, you do whatever it takes to keep a roof over your head and the lights on.

You don't see that ambition in younger people today. I don't know of any that have more than one job. I know several that won't quit smoking pot to get better paying employment. When you show people that there are jobs waiting to be had, much like you, they create excuses why those jobs are still out there.

 

[Brain357]

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

So is it the fact that other people aren't as poor as they are that's the problem, or the fact that they're being prevented from improving their own lot in life? And if it's the latter, what's actually causing the prevention?

Once again, correlation does not equal causation.

The jobs aren't there, the proof of that is the stagnant wages.

The jobs are all going to illegal aliens thanks to Democrats.

Some are. Is it just because of Dems though? Repubs own congress and do nothing.