- Jun 22, 2020
- 20,939
- 23,445
- 2,288
Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s new debt limit negotiating proposal will include broad moves to restrict food assistance for millions of low-income Americans
- Thread starter basquebromance
- Start date
It is the great American Con Job....
The powerful could put a lot of groups on the left of this table:
In this case we could replace the foreigner with the poor.
They are constantly fed a diet of lies of how somebody somewhere is robbing them from the interests that have nearly all of it.
This is how the British used to defeat the colonies, they pick a group, favour them and tell them that everyone wants what you have while they plunder...
Trump was very much one of the guys in the middle in this picture...
leftwinger
Diamond Member
Rightwinger crying about low pay. You had two years to raise it. $50/hr would solve all your problems. All talk. Just like with Tax rates. A few minor tweaks now and then. Then you cry poor me.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
You're a complete economic idiot. So you make some ridiculous post like this to pretend to know what you're talking about, but it's just a weak attempt which demonstrates that the topic is completely beyond your understanding.
There are tried and true formulae, as to the what the costs of production should be, in relation to the value of the product. If you own a restaurant, 1/3 of the prices on your menu are for food, 1/3 for expenses, and 1/3 net profit.
Since the 1980's, American per capita GDP has grown from $12,500 per year, to over $70,000 per year. That's the $$$ value of the average American worker, to his/her employer.
U.S. GDP 1960-2023
GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and...
www.macrotrends.net
But while productivity is more than 6 times what it was in 1980, the buying power of workers' wages stayed the same. That worker is actually making LESS money, in terms of buying power, than they were in 1980, while executive compensation has gone up by 1000%, and corporations are raking in record profits during the same time frame. This model is not econmically sustainable and is destroying the middle class.
Labour, as a percentage of costs, is at the same level as it was during the era of the Robber Barons in the 1800's - BEFORE UNIONS and the rise of the American Middle Class.
So if you're not prepared to discuss the topic of how low wages are destroying the American economy, using facts, figures and reason, don't fling monkey shit at the humans who are talking about the topic.
leftwinger
Diamond Member
You're a complete economic idiot. So you make some ridiculous post like this to pretend to know what you're talking about, but it's just a weak attempt which demonstrates that the topic is completely beyond your understanding.
There are tried and true formulae, as to the what the costs of production should be, in relation to the value of the product. If you own a restaurant, 1/3 of the prices on your menu are for food, 1/3 for expenses, and 1/3 net profit.
Since the 1980's, American per capita GDP has grown from $12,500 per year, to over $70,000 per year. That's the $$$ value of the average American worker, to his/her employer.
U.S. GDP 1960-2023
GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and...
But while productivity is more than 6 times what it was in 1980, the buying power of workers' wages stayed the same. That worker is actually making LESS money, in terms of buying power, than they were in 1980, while executive compensation has gone up by 1000%, and corporations are raking in record profits during the same time frame. This model is not econmically sustainable and is destroying the middle class.
Labour, as a percentage of costs, is at the same level as it was during the era of the Robber Barons in the 1800's - BEFORE UNIONS and the rise of the American Middle Class.
So if you're not prepared to discuss the topic of how low wages are destroying the American economy, using facts, figures and reason, don't fling monkey shit at the humans who are talking about the topic.
I see. $15/hour to empty trash cans & vacuum carpet is fine with you. OK, got it.
then why don't you people shut up about it?
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 45,436
- 32,018
- 3,545
WE WILL CRASH THE ECONOMY UNLESS YOU AGREE TO CUT NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR POOR CHILDREN does not feel like a winning strategy to me. Americans just aren't that mean. They want to help poor, hungry children.
McCarthy’s pitch to shrink food aid drawing skepticism from fellow Republicans
The House Speaker will propose new restrictions on the nutrition program formerly known as food stamps as part of House Republicans' debt limit negotiations with the White House.www.politico.com
Troll
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Flinging insults and running away again, eh, Oranecrap?????
Tell us again how you're "ignoring" us.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
Given what things cost today, you should be fine with it as well.
For some reason you still believe $15/ hr is good money. Curious.
Who said it’s good money? But people who did nothing to acquire a useful job skill, or are so lacking in basic ability they can’t get a McDonald’s order correct, aren’t entitled to be paid more than they’re worth.
Two kids who barely squeaked through high school with Cs can combine forces and bring home $60,000.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
You obviously believe that $15 is too much so you must see it as at least too good for them.
It’s $600.00 a week.
leftwinger
Diamond Member
You and the big mouthed DEMwitted loons had a chance to set it at $50/HR but you did not do it. Why is that?
All talk. Just like with tax rates.
It’s $30,000 a year for a job a middle schooler could do. If they wanted to earn better pay, they should have gone for a vocational program of some sort. Pell Grants would even pay for it. They have no excuse.You obviously believe that $15 is too much so you must see it as at least too good for them.
It’s $600.00 a week.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
Umm… is that too much?
The Average Cost of Housing in the U.S.: Percentage & Historical
Average U.S. housings costs as a percentage of income & expenses, historical home price index, & why you should limit your cost of housing.
20somethingfinance.com
Average Housings Costs in the U.S.
What we pay for our homes and apartments has a HUGE impact on our financial health. The cost of housing dwarfs all of the other top spending categories for Americans. According to the most recent BLS statistics, Americans spend an average of $22,624 on housing per year (per consumer unit, or household). This more than doubles the next highest category – transportation.It’s all they‘re worth, without any job skills.Umm… is that too much?
The Average Cost of Housing in the U.S.: Percentage & Historical
Average U.S. housings costs as a percentage of income & expenses, historical home price index, & why you should limit your cost of housing.
Average Housings Costs in the U.S.
What we pay for our homes and apartments has a HUGE impact on our financial health. The cost of housing dwarfs all of the other top spending categories for Americans. According to the most recent BLS statistics, Americans spend an average of $22,624 on housing per year (per consumer unit, or household). This more than doubles the next highest category – transportation.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
Nobody911
Platinum Member
- Nov 26, 2022
- 806
- 426
- 918
Militarism and economy are often intertwined in various ways. In some cases, militarism can have a negative impact on the economy of a country. For instance, increased military spending may divert resources away from other important sectors such as education, health, food, and infrastructure development.WE WILL CRASH THE ECONOMY UNLESS YOU AGREE TO CUT NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR POOR CHILDREN does not feel like a winning strategy to me. Americans just aren't that mean. They want to help poor, hungry children.
McCarthy’s pitch to shrink food aid drawing skepticism from fellow Republicans
The House Speaker will propose new restrictions on the nutrition program formerly known as food stamps as part of House Republicans' debt limit negotiations with the White House.
This may eventually lead to a decline in the economic well-being of the country. On the other hand, militarism may also have a positive impact on the economy. For example, military research and development can lead to innovations that can be applied to civilian industries, leading to economic growth.
Moreover, military spending can create jobs and stimulate economic activity in areas where military bases and facilities are located. However, militarization can become a problem when it becomes an excessive burden on the economy. This can happen when military spending is not properly managed and results in wasteful spending, or when it leads to DANGEROUS LEVELS OF DEBT that can jeopardize the financial stability of the country.
Ultimately, the relationship between militarism and economy is complex and multifaceted. While military spending can have both positive and negative impacts on the economy, it is important for US government to carefully manage the military budgets and prioritize investments that will promote long-term economic growth and stability( if Americans still want to dominate the world ).
- Jun 22, 2020
- 20,939
- 23,445
- 2,288
Such irony.
BTW, there’s a “g” on “orange”, you illiterate imbecile.
Lulz.
I never said I was ignoring you, dullard. Your idiocy is far too entertaining for that.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
I thought for a moment that was a wonderful bit of plagiarism, but I do say I am impressed. You bought into the liberal view very well.In some cases, militarism can have a negative impact on the economy of a country. For instance, increased military spending may divert resources away from other important sectors such as education, health, food, and infrastructure development.
This may eventually lead to a decline in the economic well-being of the country. On the other hand, militarism may also have a positive impact on the economy. For example, military research and development can lead to innovations that can be applied to civilian industries, leading to economic growth.
Moreover, military spending can create jobs and stimulate economic activity in areas where military bases and facilities are located. However, militarization can become a problem when it becomes an excessive burden on the economy. This can happen when military spending is not properly managed and results in wasteful spending, or when it leads to DANGEROUS LEVELS OF DEBT that can jeopardize the financial stability of the country.
Ultimately, the relationship between militarism and economy is complex and multifaceted. While military spending can have both positive and negative impacts on the economy, it is important for US government to carefully manage the military budgets and prioritize investments that will promote long-term economic growth and stability( if Americans still want to dominate the world ).
Similar threads
