Younger workers earn $10K less than in 2005

[Mr Natural]

The middle Class grew because of Reaganomics, the middle class has shrunk because of obamanomics.

***So true and obvious!! Here's a list of what the middle class can now buy that makes you question the treasonous Communist Marxist Obama class warfare mentality :

You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class got by looking at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 10 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

Toys?

The middle class is better off because there are new toys that didn't used to be available? Is that how you placate them for the fact that they have to work longer hours for less compensation? That they can't afford healthcare, education for their children? That their grown children cant afford to move out on their own? That retirement is becoming unattainable?

And you offer them toys?

Adult toys you smuck

Toys and trinkets nonetheless.

And most likely purchased with easy credit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Toys?

The middle class is better off because there are new toys that didn't used to be available? Is that how you placate them for the fact that they have to work longer hours for less compensation? That they can't afford healthcare, education for their children? That their grown children cant afford to move out on their own? That retirement is becoming unattainable?

And you offer them toys?

Adult toys you smuck

Toys and trinkets nonetheless.

And most likely purchased with easy credit.

It's what made the economy grow.

 

[rightwinger]

Adult toys you smuck

Toys and trinkets nonetheless.

And most likely purchased with easy credit.

It's what made the economy grow.

Most of those toys are made in other countries

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Toys and trinkets nonetheless.

And most likely purchased with easy credit.

It's what made the economy grow.

Most of those toys are made in other countries

Not so much during Reaganomics

 

[rightwinger]

It's what made the economy grow.

Most of those toys are made in other countries

Not so much during Reaganomics

What the hell could that possibly mean?

 

[Rshermr]

Well obama is doing his best to make everybody equal, Equally poor that is.
ten thousand dollars less than when Bush was president.


Younger workers earn $10K less than in 2005 - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet

Typical partisan idiocy.

Did you bother to read – or more importantly, comprehend – the article you posted?

The financial turmoil of the Great Recession [which began in December 2007] has almost certainly left a mark on young people. In the years following the downturn, the drop in earnings accelerated to where they are today.

It’s amazing conservatives think the voters are so stupid as to believe the nonsense that the president is somehow responsible for events prior to his election; or that he alone in a mere 4 years can reverse the effects of economic conditions years, perhaps decades, in the making.

partisan? You call me partisan and give the cock sucker in the white house a pass on every thing you are the biggest fucking hack here at the USMB.

And you will have to excuse me, but I find it hard to accept anything from a person who calls a sitting president a cock sucker. Get my drift?? You are a complete idiot, without having to see anything at all more of you. I care not whether the pres is a dem or a repub, if you are an american, as you seem to believe you are, and you can provide no more respect than that, then you are a very very sick person.

 

[Rshermr]

The middle Class grew because of Reaganomics, the middle class has shrunk because of obamanomics.

Not even close

The standard of living for the middle class has decreased since Reagan

That is a blatant lie it grew because of Reaganomics, and now we have obamanomics.

So, Reagan entered his presidency with an unemployment rate of 7.3%. Kinda high. I remember it well. We were all told of the wonders of supply side economics (Reaganomics to con tools) and how wonderful it was going to be when the great tax decrease occurred. And occur it did, in Feb of '81. By Nov of '82, The unemployment rate had risen to over 10.8%. Which still is the highest unemployment rate in the US since the great depression. And the deficit was rising like a rocket. Panic was ensuing in the reagan admin, aqnd his popularity plummeted.

So, that was it for Supply Side economics, for old ronny. He looked for a fix. Found it in raising taxes 11 times. And borrowing like crazy. Tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. In total, raised lots of revenue from borrowing and taxing, and spent it on stimulus. Turned things right around.
Now, he had no obstructionist congress. They let him do what he wanted. Lowered taxes. OK. Raised taxes. OK. Borrowed. OK. Because, you see, the dems did not want to cause the economy to crater. Just a bit different than today, eh, me con tool.

Makes one wonder, as a con tool who believes in Supply Side economics (Reaganomics to you, me con tool), why more supply side tactics were not used. Why did Reagan revert to stimulus, an obvious keynsian tool, to get himself out of his self made economic mess? Simple, really, he saw how well it worked when he tried it in '81.

So, there you go. Want to try to disprove what I said??? I really don't think you have the game to even try.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not even close

The standard of living for the middle class has decreased since Reagan

That is a blatant lie it grew because of Reaganomics, and now we have obamanomics.

So, Reagan entered his presidency with an unemployment rate of 7.3%. Kinda high. I remember it well. We were all told of the wonders of supply side economics (Reaganomics to con tools) and how wonderful it was going to be when the great tax decrease occurred. And occur it did, in Feb of '81. By Nov of '82, The unemployment rate had risen to over 10.8%. Which still is the highest unemployment rate in the US since the great depression. And the deficit was rising like a rocket. Panic was ensuing in the reagan admin, aqnd his popularity plummeted.

So, that was it for Supply Side economics, for old ronny. He looked for a fix. Found it in raising taxes 11 times. And borrowing like crazy. Tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. In total, raised lots of revenue from borrowing and taxing, and spent it on stimulus. Turned things right around.
Now, he had no obstructionist congress. They let him do what he wanted. Lowered taxes. OK. Raised taxes. OK. Borrowed. OK. Because, you see, the dems did not want to cause the economy to crater. Just a bit different than today, eh, me con tool.

Makes one wonder, as a con tool who believes in Supply Side economics (Reaganomics to you, me con tool), why more supply side tactics were not used. Why did Reagan revert to stimulus, an obvious keynsian tool, to get himself out of his self made economic mess? Simple, really, he saw how well it worked when he tried it in '81.

So, there you go. Want to try to disprove what I said??? I really don't think you have the game to even try.

All I can say is suck on this short bus.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

You are dismissed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Most of those toys are made in other countries

Not so much during Reaganomics

What the hell could that possibly mean?

If you have to ask, then you're too fucking stupid to understand the answer.

 

[Mr Natural]

Adult toys you smuck

Toys and trinkets nonetheless.

And most likely purchased with easy credit.

It's what made the economy grow.

Great, an economy built on junk and debt.

 

[uscitizen]

Well obama is doing his best to make everybody equal, Equally poor that is.
ten thousand dollars less than when Bush was president.


Younger workers earn $10K less than in 2005 - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet

Moving towards labor competion in the global economy.
We still have a ways to go though.

 

[rightwinger]

Not so much during Reaganomics

What the hell could that possibly mean?

If you have to ask, then you're too fucking stupid to understand the answer.

OK ..I'm stupid

Explain it so a stupid person could understand it

 

[del]

Who fights the minimum wage?
Who fights against union rights?
Who fights funding education programs?
Who fights worker protections?

Then who gloats when workers make less?

Thanks for proving libs are losing the battle of ideas....

We are doing EVERY one of those things and have been for years and it is not working.


BTW, your last sentence is an outright lie...

hey, einstein, if it's not working, why do you rocket surgeons keep trying it?



maroon

 

[Rshermr]

Who fights the minimum wage?
Who fights against union rights?
Who fights funding education programs?
Who fights worker protections?

Then who gloats when workers make less?

Thanks for proving libs are losing the battle of ideas....

We are doing EVERY one of those things and have been for years and it is not working.


BTW, your last sentence is an outright lie...

hey, einstein, if it's not working, why do you rocket surgeons keep trying it?



maroon

Obviously you are living in a different world. The con world. Where you do not notice that there is absolutely no interest in passing anything that the pres asks for through the repub controlled house. Nothing. Total obstruction. No Jobs Bill. No parts of the jobs bill. NOTHING.
And the senate, when there was a dem house, FILIBUSTERED EVERYTHING. A record number of filibusters, way beyond any number of filibusters EVER in a 4 year term, BUT they did it in 2 years!!! Then, cons like you blame the economy on the current pres. He inherited the worst economy since the great depression AND a republican congress totally stopping anything that might help the economy. Which, if you think about it just a little, is anti-American. To hell with the middle class, lets make sure the rich are doing well and that the dems loose the presidency.

"But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html

a total of 375 bills that passed the Democratic-majority House have been blocked by Republicans in the Senate...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...use-of-the-Filibuster-Not-a-topic-of-the-News

With partisanship and obstructionism the GOP's preferred strategy, filibuster threats have soared to record levels and explain in large part why so many popular Democratic Party proposals have been left in the dust.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Senate-Stuck-in-Quicksand-by-Arlen-Grossman-120418-565.html

Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters
Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters

Cons can blame dems all they want. But the record is clear. Repubs have been interested in only one thing: making the us economy as bad as possible.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

republican congress totally stopping anything that might help the economy.

of course if socialist measure from Congress could help rather than damage the economy you would not be so afraid to give your best example for the whole world to see!!

What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Simple, really, he saw how well it worked when he tried it in '81.

The complete blithering idiot liberal strikes again! The Fed raised interest rates to 20% to crash the economy when Reagan first took office.

Did you ever think about reading about the period before you posted??


Now do you understand why you have been reduced to personal attacks and studies supposedly showing that our Founders and Milton Friedman were stupid!!

 

[Rshermr]

Simple, really, he saw how well it worked when he tried it in '81.

The complete blithering idiot liberal strikes again! The Fed raised interest rates to 20% to crash the economy when Reagan first took office.

Did you ever think about reading about the period before you posted??


Now do you understand why you have been reduced to personal attacks and studies supposedly showing that our Founders and Milton Friedman were stupid!!

the fed raised the rate to 20% during the Carter admin, and yet the unemployment rate continued to fall. It did not rise until reagans tax decrease. So, unemployment rose to 10.8%. So, reagan must have utilized supply side economics again, right. But of course not. He raised taxes 11 times, borrowed enough to triple the national debt. And used deficit spending.
Damn, ed, you need to look at the material they gave you to copy and paste. You do not have the info to make an actual argument, assuming you were capable of doing so.

 

[uscitizen]

This is merely the result of competing in a global marketplace.

We need to make less still to properly compete.

On the plus side productivity is inversely proportional to our pay.

 

[Rshermr]

That is a blatant lie it grew because of Reaganomics, and now we have obamanomics.

So, Reagan entered his presidency with an unemployment rate of 7.3%. Kinda high. I remember it well. We were all told of the wonders of supply side economics (Reaganomics to con tools) and how wonderful it was going to be when the great tax decrease occurred. And occur it did, in Feb of '81. By Nov of '82, The unemployment rate had risen to over 10.8%. Which still is the highest unemployment rate in the US since the great depression. And the deficit was rising like a rocket. Panic was ensuing in the reagan admin, aqnd his popularity plummeted.

So, that was it for Supply Side economics, for old ronny. He looked for a fix. Found it in raising taxes 11 times. And borrowing like crazy. Tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. In total, raised lots of revenue from borrowing and taxing, and spent it on stimulus. Turned things right around.
Now, he had no obstructionist congress. They let him do what he wanted. Lowered taxes. OK. Raised taxes. OK. Borrowed. OK. Because, you see, the dems did not want to cause the economy to crater. Just a bit different than today, eh, me con tool.

Makes one wonder, as a con tool who believes in Supply Side economics (Reaganomics to you, me con tool), why more supply side tactics were not used. Why did Reagan revert to stimulus, an obvious keynsian tool, to get himself out of his self made economic mess? Simple, really, he saw how well it worked when he tried it in '81.

So, there you go. Want to try to disprove what I said??? I really don't think you have the game to even try.

All I can say is suck on this short bus.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

You are dismissed.

I will let you know if I feel like being dismissed, my poor ignorant con.

So, you post a op ed piece by one of the biggest right wing bat shit crazy con tools known. Peter Ferrara. Sorry, this clown does not meet the giggle test. Nice job finding another really, really politically partial sources. Dipshit. Let me get you a quote from move on. But then, I will not because I have integrity, which you lack entirely.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, Reagan entered his presidency with an unemployment rate of 7.3%. Kinda high. I remember it well. We were all told of the wonders of supply side economics (Reaganomics to con tools) and how wonderful it was going to be when the great tax decrease occurred. And occur it did, in Feb of '81. By Nov of '82, The unemployment rate had risen to over 10.8%. Which still is the highest unemployment rate in the US since the great depression. And the deficit was rising like a rocket. Panic was ensuing in the reagan admin, aqnd his popularity plummeted.

So, that was it for Supply Side economics, for old ronny. He looked for a fix. Found it in raising taxes 11 times. And borrowing like crazy. Tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined. In total, raised lots of revenue from borrowing and taxing, and spent it on stimulus. Turned things right around.
Now, he had no obstructionist congress. They let him do what he wanted. Lowered taxes. OK. Raised taxes. OK. Borrowed. OK. Because, you see, the dems did not want to cause the economy to crater. Just a bit different than today, eh, me con tool.

Makes one wonder, as a con tool who believes in Supply Side economics (Reaganomics to you, me con tool), why more supply side tactics were not used. Why did Reagan revert to stimulus, an obvious keynsian tool, to get himself out of his self made economic mess? Simple, really, he saw how well it worked when he tried it in '81.

So, there you go. Want to try to disprove what I said??? I really don't think you have the game to even try.

All I can say is suck on this short bus.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

You are dismissed.

I will let you know if I feel like being dismissed, my poor ignorant con.

So, you post a op ed piece by one of the biggest right wing bat shit crazy con tools known. Peter Ferrara. Sorry, this clown does not meet the giggle test. Nice job finding another really, really politically partial sources. Dipshit. Let me get you a quote from move on. But then, I will not because I have integrity, which you lack entirely.

No you're dismissed. It maybe an op ed but I lived through Reagan era nothing in it is wrong.
As I said you're dismissed.