Bill O'Reilly got it wrong this time. Way wrong.

[iamwhatiseem]

Watch this clip....
Income inequality in America On Air Videos Fox News

The first thing you will note is how quickly Bill switched the topic away from income disparity to tax disparity. And how the poor helpless $100+ per year income millionaires are paying high taxes. And the bottom 60% people earning below poverty wages get money back.
Really Bill?
That is your answer to the ever increasing wage gap is "well yeah but rich people pay more taxes"...this is two different topics.
Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings while the top 7% have basked in a whopping 33% INCREASE.
This is anti-American. This is more akin to the old European aristocracy.
And Bill - your only response is how high the taxes are????
Wow. You are way off on this one.


P.S. > I do agree that businesses and affluent people are paying too much in taxes. But, again, that is a separate issue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

Wages have been stagnant WAAAAAYYY before Obama.
True, he has exacerbated the problem, AWOL at best, but he is not the originator nor the cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

Rooted in Reaganomics and the plutocracy that control America.

That is going to change and soon.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

Rooted in Reaganomics and the plutocracy that control America.

That is going to change and soon.

Reagan died 11 years ago. He has not been President in 26 years.
Any effect he had has long been past.
Some say Reagan introduced "trickle down economics", which is highly untrue, that existed long before him. But those same people don't say that about Obama. Who has practised the largest trickle down economics in history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wage stagnation is a HUGE problem for 93% of working Americans. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings

Obamanomics......not good for working Americans.

Rooted in Reaganomics and the plutocracy that control America.

That is going to change and soon.

Rooted in Reaganomics

Obamanonics is rooted in Reaganomics?

Whatever he's doing, it isn't working.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Bill O'Reilly got it wrong this time. Way wrong."

At least O'Reilly is consistent at being wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan died 11 years ago. He has not been President in 26 years.
Any effect he had has long been past.
Some say Reagan introduced "trickle down economics", which is highly untrue, that existed long before him. But those same people don't say that about Obama. Who has practised the largest trickle down economics in history.

All effects have root causes, and the root cause 35 years begins with Reagan.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Reagan died 11 years ago. He has not been President in 26 years.
Any effect he had has long been past.
Some say Reagan introduced "trickle down economics", which is highly untrue, that existed long before him. But those same people don't say that about Obama. Who has practised the largest trickle down economics in history.

All effects have root causes, and the root cause 35 years begins with Reagan.

That is ridiculous. That marginalizes all of the people of the past 26 years who have done nothing but contribute to wage disparity.
This is NOT a right/left issue.
BOTH sides have/are doing everything they can to keep the top at the top and the rest of us subservient to them.
Bernie Sanders, as nutty as he might be, is probably the only one who isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan died 11 years ago. He has not been President in 26 years.
Any effect he had has long been past.
Some say Reagan introduced "trickle down economics", which is highly untrue, that existed long before him. But those same people don't say that about Obama. Who has practised the largest trickle down economics in history.

All effects have root causes, and the root cause 35 years begins with Reagan.

That is ridiculous. That marginalizes all of the people of the past 26 years who have done nothing but contribute to wage disparity.
This is NOT a right/left issue.
BOTH sides have/are doing everything they can to keep the top at the top and the rest of us subservient to them.
Bernie Sanders, as nutty as he might be, is probably the only one who isn't.

Your reaction does not hide that it all began with Reagan's administrations. You are right that the plutocracy has corrupted both parties. Sanders is honest and a nut, yes.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Reagan died 11 years ago. He has not been President in 26 years.
Any effect he had has long been past.
Some say Reagan introduced "trickle down economics", which is highly untrue, that existed long before him. But those same people don't say that about Obama. Who has practised the largest trickle down economics in history.

All effects have root causes, and the root cause 35 years begins with Reagan.

That is ridiculous. That marginalizes all of the people of the past 26 years who have done nothing but contribute to wage disparity.
This is NOT a right/left issue.
BOTH sides have/are doing everything they can to keep the top at the top and the rest of us subservient to them.
Bernie Sanders, as nutty as he might be, is probably the only one who isn't.

Your reaction does not hide that it all began with Reagan's administrations. You are right that the plutocracy has corrupted both parties. Sanders is honest and a nut, yes.

But it didn't.
No one can argue, well they can but they would be wrong, Reagan's de-regulation of the markets set the course for the bubble building markets.
But Clinton's massive deregulation to downright criminal changes in the home lending markets contributed more.
And then there is Alan Greenspan's "debt as income" mentality that created the false economic growth of the 90's into the 2000's.
Then there is Larry Summers and derivative markets...all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan. Truth is, he is a minor player in our current situation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Reagan died 11 years ago. He has not been President in 26 years.
Any effect he had has long been past.
Some say Reagan introduced "trickle down economics", which is highly untrue, that existed long before him. But those same people don't say that about Obama. Who has practised the largest trickle down economics in history.

All effects have root causes, and the root cause 35 years begins with Reagan.

That is ridiculous. That marginalizes all of the people of the past 26 years who have done nothing but contribute to wage disparity.
This is NOT a right/left issue.
BOTH sides have/are doing everything they can to keep the top at the top and the rest of us subservient to them.
Bernie Sanders, as nutty as he might be, is probably the only one who isn't.

Your reaction does not hide that it all began with Reagan's administrations. You are right that the plutocracy has corrupted both parties. Sanders is honest and a nut, yes.

But it didn't.
No one can argue, well they can but they would be wrong, Reagan's de-regulation of the markets set the course for the bubble building markets.
But Clinton's massive deregulation to downright criminal changes in the home lending markets contributed more.
And then there is Alan Greenspan's "debt as income" mentality that created the false economic growth of the 90's into the 2000's.
Then there is Larry Summers and derivative markets...all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan. Truth is, he is a minor player in our current situation.

Deregulation is the common theme in all of the above and it began when the Koch bros tried to run of office in the 1980's.

If you compare their Libertarian platform back then to the current GOP platform you will see that the GOP has adopted the Libertarian platform almost in it's entirety.

Deregulation has been at the root cause of the fiscal meltdowns during this period and it is also the primary cause of the attempts to cut spending, primarily social welfare spending.

The harm to hardworking Americans all stems from failed Libertarian Deregulation dogma. Yes, this includes the bogus "free markets" that were paid for by the incomes and benefits of Americans whose jobs were outsourced to 3rd world nations.

 

[Care4all]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

If everyone was to be given a $10 an hour increase across the board the economy would boom and the problem would resolve itself.

The Wall Street Casino Bosses are demanding that pay raises be held down to the bare minimum in order to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of hardworking Americans. They punish any corporation that fails to meet their expectations. Since the corporate executives make the bulk of their income from share price increases in their stock grants they have no incentive to tell the Wall Street Casino Bosses where to shove it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

I would almost be willing to elect Bernie Sanders, (the entertainment value would be priceless alone) as he is the only one on either side who just actually might do something for our benefit.
The right would go insane at the mere suggestion of this, but I would do it just so that something DIFFERENT happens.
Obama ran on "hope and change" but as far as government collusion with super corporations/industries and the financial markets - nothing changed, in fact it is worse now than before he was elected.
We need real change. Which immediately dismisses Hillary Clinton. And there is no one on the right that I see would change a damn thing in this regard either. I had hopes for Ben Carson. But those hopes were quickly obliterated.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings while the top 7% have basked in a whopping 33% INCREASE.
This is anti-American.

its true that liberals are anti-American to drive down wages by shipping 30 million jobs offshore with liberal unions, taxes, and deficits. And this is not to mention inviting 20 million illegals in to take and drive down the wages of the remaining jobs.

Why not make liberalism illegal because it is Anti-i American and 100% stupid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

. That's right...93% of working Americans in the past 7 years have suffered a 5% DECLINE in earnings while the top 7% have basked in a whopping 33% INCREASE.
This is anti-American.

its true that liberals are anti-American to drive down wages by shipping 30 million jobs offshore with liberal unions, taxes, and deficits. And this is not to mention inviting 20 million illegals in to take and drive down the wages of the remaining jobs. Why not make liberalism illegal because it is Anti-i American and 100% stupid?

If American companies followed Eddy's economic theories, world poverty would increase in the first year by 10% and America would be a third world economy in 10 years.

 

[Care4all]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

I would almost be willing to elect Bernie Sanders, (the entertainment value would be priceless alone) as he is the only one on either side who just actually might do something for our benefit.
The right would go insane at the mere suggestion of this, but I would do it just so that something DIFFERENT happens.
Obama ran on "hope and change" but as far as government collusion with super corporations/industries and the financial markets - nothing changed, in fact it is worse now than before he was elected.
We need real change. Which immediately dismisses Hillary Clinton. And there is no one on the right that I see would change a damn thing in this regard either. I had hopes for Ben Carson. But those hopes were quickly obliterated.

I do know what you mean....But even with Bernie, what could he really do about any of it if he has a congress that is dead set against doing something... almost nothing got accomplished by Obama of what he wanted, primarily because of the congress, and as much as they didn't "like" Obama, they will hate Bernie moreso, coming at him from the Dem side and the Repub side...their money masters won't let them work with him...

Actually, "they" won't let Bernie win.... and unless there is a huge and overwhelming "Bernie Sanders" movement from the bottom up, we won't be able to overcome the money that will be put in the game to make certain he will be defeated...honest to goodness, I think it is even worse than we may think with who truly runs the show....

Bernie seems to be the only one that is honest about all of this, to his very core...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

I would almost be willing to elect Bernie Sanders, (the entertainment value would be priceless alone) as he is the only one on either side who just actually might do something for our benefit.
The right would go insane at the mere suggestion of this, but I would do it just so that something DIFFERENT happens.
Obama ran on "hope and change" but as far as government collusion with super corporations/industries and the financial markets - nothing changed, in fact it is worse now than before he was elected.
We need real change. Which immediately dismisses Hillary Clinton. And there is no one on the right that I see would change a damn thing in this regard either. I had hopes for Ben Carson. But those hopes were quickly obliterated.

I do know what you mean....But even with Bernie, what could he really do about any of it if he has a congress that is dead set against doing something... almost nothing got accomplished by Obama of what he wanted, primarily because of the congress, and as much as they didn't "like" Obama, they will hate Bernie moreso, coming at him from the Dem side and the Repub side...their money masters won't let them work with him...

Actually, "they" won't let Bernie win.... and unless there is a huge and overwhelming "Bernie Sanders" movement from the bottom up, we won't be able to overcome the money that will be put in the game to make certain he will be defeated...honest to goodness, I think it is even worse than we may think with who truly runs the show....

Bernie seems to be the only one that is honest about all of this, to his very core...

One thing is for sure if Hillary wins - the game will be taken to another level just like her husband did.
Bill Clinton would make any deal if he could get what he wanted out of it.
Hillary IMO is even worse. She just wants to be a member of the elitist of the elite. Nothing would please her more than the richest most powerful people in the world setting in front of her asking for favors. Americas Godmother.

 

[gipper]

How can it be fixed, what needs to change so that 93% of us are not behind the 8 ball on salaries and the other 7% reaping the benefits of the economy leaps and bounds?

I would almost be willing to elect Bernie Sanders, (the entertainment value would be priceless alone) as he is the only one on either side who just actually might do something for our benefit.
The right would go insane at the mere suggestion of this, but I would do it just so that something DIFFERENT happens.
Obama ran on "hope and change" but as far as government collusion with super corporations/industries and the financial markets - nothing changed, in fact it is worse now than before he was elected.
We need real change. Which immediately dismisses Hillary Clinton. And there is no one on the right that I see would change a damn thing in this regard either. I had hopes for Ben Carson. But those hopes were quickly obliterated.

I do know what you mean....But even with Bernie, what could he really do about any of it if he has a congress that is dead set against doing something... almost nothing got accomplished by Obama of what he wanted, primarily because of the congress, and as much as they didn't "like" Obama, they will hate Bernie moreso, coming at him from the Dem side and the Repub side...their money masters won't let them work with him...

Actually, "they" won't let Bernie win.... and unless there is a huge and overwhelming "Bernie Sanders" movement from the bottom up, we won't be able to overcome the money that will be put in the game to make certain he will be defeated...honest to goodness, I think it is even worse than we may think with who truly runs the show....

Bernie seems to be the only one that is honest about all of this, to his very core...

One thing is for sure if Hillary wins - the game will be taken to another level just like her husband did.
Bill Clinton would make any deal if he could get what he wanted out of it.
Hillary IMO is even worse. She just wants to be a member of the elitist of the elite. Nothing would please her more than the richest most powerful people in the world setting in front of her asking for favors. Americas Godmother.

You mean America's power elite Godmother

She is the best friend of the top .01%....but then most of the R candidates are too. She is just the most known quantity as a lying corrupt elitist.