Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
wave good bye to the middle class.
This is a glaring example of why the GOP/Reagan concepts of trickle down economics do not work. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will result in more jobs and a rising tide for all Americans has been a farce.
In reality, the wealthy has kept the additional money and sent jobs overseas.
The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it
The union members and government workers would dispute that? It is because of the rich that there is enough capital to sustain a middle-class! It will soon all be worse, then you can feel successful.
This is as good a place as any for this little rant:
People and especially the left absouletely refuse to see the effect that human nature and personal decisions shape society and how it progresses as a whole.
OTOH, those on the right fail to see how collective decisions shape society and progresses it as a whole. Did central water and sewage treatment advance society?
The gap between rich and poor is as good an example as ay. What are the variables that are contributing to this widening gap? Libs go about blaming everything under the sun for this problem EXCEPT for one thing.
An exaggeration and a strawman argument.
My attitudes and decisions didn't facilitate off shoring of traditional middle class jobs like software engineering. Right wing tax policy did.
Like it requires no effort on your part. Like you are ENTITLED to be middle class. First it indeed did take effort on the part of your parents to achieve middle class. I know it did mine.
More Limbaugh style bullshit. The converse is that only the well to do, and their children, are entitled to opportunities.
Second of all middle class now is not what middle class was then. Then you were middle class if you had ONE TV and it was in color. Now middle class is a TV in every room with satelite or cable.
All you need is a hook up under that bridge if you've lost your job, your family, your home because of the bad dice roll that's always crooked toward the most wealthy.
The bottom line is still the bottom line. The upper class will remove your opportunities, and buy a right wing government to enable them, if that's what they see as putting more money in their pockets. They'll get the middle class to shoulder the lions share of the tax burden, and right wingers will screech cut taxes and lower the deficit.
Only a fool believes there's a level playing field. The rich will grant just enough social safety nets to protect them from armed insurrection, and the middle class can go pound sand if they find they can make more money by having their customer service centers in India.
I'm exaggerating, Really????? How????? Nickels and dimes?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/nyregion/24hud.html
WTF does the fact that Cuomo was HUD chief under Clinton have to do with the financial meltdown that happened six years after he left?
How'd Bush's "ownership society" work out?
You obviously have not followed the story. Who started "No Money Down"? Who pressured the lenders? Who obstructed the investigations into unethical lending? Who profited from higher housing costs? Who profited from the higher property taxes that resulted? Why does Barney Frank all of a sudden want Fannie and Freddie shut down?
This is as good a place as any for this little rant:
People and especially the left absouletely refuse to see the effect that human nature and personal decisions shape society and how it progresses as a whole.
OTOH, those on the right fail to see how collective decisions shape society and progresses it as a whole. Did central water and sewage treatment advance society?
An exaggeration and a strawman argument.
My attitudes and decisions didn't facilitate off shoring of traditional middle class jobs like software engineering. Right wing tax policy did.
More Limbaugh style bullshit. The converse is that only the well to do, and their children, are entitled to opportunities.
Second of all middle class now is not what middle class was then. Then you were middle class if you had ONE TV and it was in color. Now middle class is a TV in every room with satelite or cable.
All you need is a hook up under that bridge if you've lost your job, your family, your home because of the bad dice roll that's always crooked toward the most wealthy.
The bottom line is still the bottom line. The upper class will remove your opportunities, and buy a right wing government to enable them, if that's what they see as putting more money in their pockets. They'll get the middle class to shoulder the lions share of the tax burden, and right wingers will screech cut taxes and lower the deficit.
Only a fool believes there's a level playing field. The rich will grant just enough social safety nets to protect them from armed insurrection, and the middle class can go pound sand if they find they can make more money by having their customer service centers in India.
Maybe it's a more fundamental problem. Like you don't understand the definition of words. Like the word opportunity for example. You seem to see opportunity as an end point, rather than a starting point. Everyone has the opportunity to rich. Having said opportunity does not mean everyone WILL be rich. Opportunity is just another way of identifying possible outcomes. The outcome that actually take place is entirely up to you.
Your own words prove my point that more and more people in today's society refuse to hold themselves responsible for their outcomes. A better way to say it would be they refuse to acknowledge the opportunities they did NOT pursue. And then you have the nerve to rant about why things are the way they are when answer number one for that is starring you in the mirror.
My position is you're exaggerating and diverting blame. You're bitching about nickels and dimes, when anyone with a brain understands that chopping down the fire wall in investment banking and allowing them to create investment instruments, like CDS, was a primary cause of the current economy. If I were to pick a scapegoat, who I believe most responsible, it would be Phil Graham, the tea bag hero.
I'm exaggerating, Really????? How????? Nickels and dimes?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/nyregion/24hud.html
Yeah, nickels and dimes. If what you claim is correct, why did Bush push his "ownership society" initiative, and loosen the requirements on Freddie and Fannie. Nope, you need to think outside of your partisan box, and determine what Phil Graham's deregulation did. It essentially allowed investment banks into the mortgage industry, with zero oversight.
I'm exaggerating, Really????? How????? Nickels and dimes?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/nyregion/24hud.html
Yeah, nickels and dimes. If what you claim is correct, why did Bush push his "ownership society" initiative, and loosen the requirements on Freddie and Fannie. Nope, you need to think outside of your partisan box, and determine what Phil Graham's deregulation did. It essentially allowed investment banks into the mortgage industry, with zero oversight.
It was the Dems who took the reins off F&F.
It was the Dems who pushed for the banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it.
Idiot.
This is a glaring example of why the GOP/Reagan concepts of trickle down economics do not work. The idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will result in more jobs and a rising tide for all Americans has been a farce.
In reality, the wealthy has kept the additional money and sent jobs overseas.
The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it
The union members and government workers would dispute that? It is because of the rich that there is enough capital to sustain a middle-class! It will soon all be worse, then you can feel successful.
You couldn't be any more wrong.
It is because of the strong middle class that we have so many wealthy
I'm exaggerating, Really????? How????? Nickels and dimes?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/nyregion/24hud.html
Yeah, nickels and dimes. If what you claim is correct, why did Bush push his "ownership society" initiative, and loosen the requirements on Freddie and Fannie. Nope, you need to think outside of your partisan box, and determine what Phil Graham's deregulation did. It essentially allowed investment banks into the mortgage industry, with zero oversight.
It was the Dems who took the reins off F&F.
It was the Dems who pushed for the banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it.
Idiot.
Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology.
Peter Ferrara Says Barack Obama's Economic Policy, Guided By Liberal Ideology, Is Impeding Recovery - WSJ.com
Yeah, nickels and dimes. If what you claim is correct, why did Bush push his "ownership society" initiative, and loosen the requirements on Freddie and Fannie. Nope, you need to think outside of your partisan box, and determine what Phil Graham's deregulation did. It essentially allowed investment banks into the mortgage industry, with zero oversight.
It was the Dems who took the reins off F&F.
It was the Dems who pushed for the banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it.
Idiot.
Sorry liar, but it was Bush's "ownership society" nonsense which pushed things over the top.
It was the Dems who took the reins off F&F.
It was the Dems who pushed for the banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it.
Idiot.
Sorry liar, but it was Bush's "ownership society" nonsense which pushed things over the top.
Bullshit. Glib, halfassed comments about one man being responsible are the very height of stupidity.
Jeez, do any of the free market rich worshippers know any rich or well to do people? The ones we know create few jobs, they often have high level jobs or simply a wonderful inheritance of a business or just numerous assets. I know a few who have done well in the information age, but even they create few jobs. It is demand and opportunity that creates jobs. If you look at the golden age of economics in America, it was the manufacturing of durable goods and the demands created after WWII and the Great Depression as America expanded into the modern age. It was also importantly the GI Bill - education - which I even used to move up that food chain. America then was the manufacturing giant in the world, admired for its accomplishments at home and also for its help overseas rebuilding. That changed and today corporations buy and build overseas. Look at any major corporation and where their support desk is, where manufacturing is done, it has nothing to do with taxes as taxes were the highest during the golden age.
"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.
"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax
"Theres a great WSJ blog called "The Wealth Report" by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called "Richistan" in which he makes a case that the worlds wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (lets call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. (Whos your household manager?')."
"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.
"Whats scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means theres $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."
This has more to do with Republicans AND Democrats dependence on the richest 1% of Americans to fund their campaigns than it does with "merit."
FLUSH the DC TOILET in 2010.
The Dooh Nibor Economy
For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" the prime function of ALL governments was to socialize cost and privatize profit.
GE and the Pentagon continue this proud tradition.
The forcing comes from those on the left who think others should be forced to subsidize your want to go to college
You can work your way thru.. most just do not choose the hard road it takes to do so...
You could "work your way through" 100K to get an engineering degree? How many people can do that? Very few (you'd have to be already rich). C'mon, stop being so stupid.
