Trump's Tower Of Lies

[KissMy]

Trump told the truth when he said he would bankrupt america!

When and where did Daffy Donny say that he would "bankrupt America" ?

Campaign Trump - “But I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal" - Republican voters loved it!

Campaign Trump - "I am the King of Debt,” - Repubtard voters ate it up!

Trump has made use of debt, and U.S. bankruptcy laws, liberally throughout his career. Four of his business have declared bankruptcy; during the Republican primary, he bragged about his use of the bankruptcy code as a sign of business acumen.

President Trump refused to tackle the US’s spiraling national debt because he will not be in office by the time the situation is expected to reach a crisis point. Officials attempted to warn Trump during a meeting, however once the president realized the problem was only likely to become critical after he had completed a possible second term, Trump remarked “Yeah, but I won’t be here!”

Multiple White House sources said president Trump was reluctant to make significant savings in many areas. Administration officials said he ordered the $716 billion military spending budget to be largely ring-fenced, while refusing to make budget cuts because of their popularity with voters.

One official said Trump made repeated calls for the treasury to print more money to tackle the national debt. “He’d just say, run the presses, run the presses”

 

[NightFox]

Trump told the truth when he said he would bankrupt america!

When and where did Daffy Donny say that he would "bankrupt America" ?

Campaign Trump - “But I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal. And if the economy was good, it was good.” - Republican voters loved it!

Campaign Trump - "I am the King of Debt,” - Repubtard voters ate it up!

Trump has made use of debt, and U.S. bankruptcy laws, liberally throughout his career. Four of his business have declared bankruptcy; during the Republican primary, he bragged about his use of the bankruptcy code as a sign of business acumen.

President Trump refused to tackle the US’s spiraling national debt because he will not be in office by the time the situation is expected to reach a crisis point. Officials attempted to warn Trump during a meeting, however once the president realized the problem was only likely to become critical after he had completed a possible second term, Trump remarked “Yeah, but I won’t be here!”

Multiple White House sources said president Trump was reluctant to make significant savings in many areas. Administration officials said he ordered the $716 billion military spending budget to be largely ring-fenced, while refusing to make budget cuts because of their popularity with voters.

One official said Trump made repeated calls for the treasury to print more money to tackle the national debt. “He’d just say, run the presses, run the presses”

Uh-huh thanks for all that, I'm sure you put in A LOT of effort avoiding the question .... however I ask AGAIN in response to your assertion:

Trump told the truth when he said he would bankrupt america!

When and where did Daffy Donny say that he would "bankrupt America" ?

 

[sealybobo]

I find it amazing Republicans dare call Elizabeth Warren Pokahontas when Trump lies so much

From the size of his inaugural crowds to a hurricane threatening Alabama

But, there was still some surprise this week when at services to mark the 18th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the president insisted, "Soon after, I went down to Ground Zero with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could ... We were not alone. So many others were scattered around trying to do the same. They were all trying to help."

Richard Alles, battalion chief of the New York Fire Department at the time of the attacks, spent several months in the smoking, choking ruins at ground zero. He told PolitiFact this summer, "I was there for several months — I have no knowledge of his being down there." He added that there would be a record of Donald Trump sending a hundred or more workers to aid in the harrowing recovery efforts at Ground Zero; there is not.

How does he get away with this?

If I were a stupid, demodummie, left tarded, shitforbrains, anything havin to do with the truth would be the very last subject I'd want to bring up.

Trump lies constantly. You want to ignore that? YOu want to make a big deal over pocahontas but not lying about being part of the help during 9-11? You guys are truly scum

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

And another thing:





If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
― Mark Twain

Mark Twain never met Double Down Donnie.

 

[sealybobo]

I find it amazing Republicans dare call Elizabeth Warren Pokahontas when Trump lies so much

From the size of his inaugural crowds to a hurricane threatening Alabama

But, there was still some surprise this week when at services to mark the 18th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the president insisted, "Soon after, I went down to Ground Zero with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could ... We were not alone. So many others were scattered around trying to do the same. They were all trying to help."

Richard Alles, battalion chief of the New York Fire Department at the time of the attacks, spent several months in the smoking, choking ruins at ground zero. He told PolitiFact this summer, "I was there for several months — I have no knowledge of his being down there." He added that there would be a record of Donald Trump sending a hundred or more workers to aid in the harrowing recovery efforts at Ground Zero; there is not.

How does he get away with this?

If I were a stupid, demodummie, left tarded, shitforbrains, anything havin to do with the truth would be the very last subject I'd want to bring up.

Trump lies constantly. You want to ignore that? YOu want to make a big deal over pocahontas but not lying about being part of the help during 9-11? You guys are truly scum

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

You're probably another one of those hypocrite old ass white Republicans.

You got a pension
You were paid better than todays workers are being paid
Your college was a lot more affordable

I posted earlier than Americans in Reagan's first term were able to save 10% of their salaries. By Bush 2's 2nd term, most people were negative 10%. That means not only were they no longer able to save, they went into debt. MAGA. LOL

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

Some people don't care about the truth. We call them Trump supporters or false conservatives aka CONS. Politicians lie and that is a given. Politicians make false statements that may or may not be lies but when Trump makes false statements and his false statements are lies. Att CONS: a lie is when you say something that you know is untrue. Is there anything about that you don't understand CONS/Trump Supporters/Fools?

Trump has set records for lying. He's even beaten Romney and Lyin Paul Ryan at the game. 76% of what Trump says are lies. The worst thing about Trump's constant is that his supporters know he's a liar and they support him anyway. And while Trump supporters are stupid, it is not because they are stupid that they believe his lies. The simple fact remains; Trump supporters are just no damn good and most of them are even worse than Trump.

Trump's lies are so often and so many that there is now a growing repository for his lies. Visit Trump Tower Of Lies and post it here and everywhere. Maybe there are some Trump supporter who are only stupid and do care about the truth.

Here is a question tRump supporters lack the honesty to answer. It is a fact that Trump lies at least 76% of the time making him the biggest liar to ever run for POTUS.

Why do you CONS support Trump? I will ask again.. Why do you CONS support the biggest liar?

I find it amazing Republicans dare call Elizabeth Warren Pokahontas when Trump lies so much

From the size of his inaugural crowds to a hurricane threatening Alabama

But, there was still some surprise this week when at services to mark the 18th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the president insisted, "Soon after, I went down to Ground Zero with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could ... We were not alone. So many others were scattered around trying to do the same. They were all trying to help."

Richard Alles, battalion chief of the New York Fire Department at the time of the attacks, spent several months in the smoking, choking ruins at ground zero. He told PolitiFact this summer, "I was there for several months — I have no knowledge of his being down there." He added that there would be a record of Donald Trump sending a hundred or more workers to aid in the harrowing recovery efforts at Ground Zero; there is not.

How does he get away with this?

There's video of Trump giving an interview and standing roughly in the same place we stood when we visited Ground Zero in October 2001. About a block from the barrier wall that was erected at Greenwich and Fulton.

He didn't go in and help or get dirty like the then-decent and honest Rudy Giuliani.

He had to inject himself into 9/11 like he injects himself into everything, whether he's relevant or not.

Sociopath to the bone, that Orange White Walker.

 

[Third Party]

Some people don't care about the truth. We call them Trump supporters or false conservatives aka CONS. Politicians lie and that is a given. Politicians make false statements that may or may not be lies but when Trump makes false statements and his false statements are lies. Att CONS: a lie is when you say something that you know is untrue. Is there anything about that you don't understand CONS/Trump Supporters/Fools?

Trump has set records for lying. He's even beaten Romney and Lyin Paul Ryan at the game. 76% of what Trump says are lies. The worst thing about Trump's constant is that his supporters know he's a liar and they support him anyway. And while Trump supporters are stupid, it is not because they are stupid that they believe his lies. The simple fact remains; Trump supporters are just no damn good and most of them are even worse than Trump.

Trump's lies are so often and so many that there is now a growing repository for his lies. Visit Trump Tower Of Lies and post it here and everywhere. Maybe there are some Trump supporter who are only stupid and do care about the truth.

Here is a question tRump supporters lack the honesty to answer. It is a fact that Trump lies at least 76% of the time making him the biggest liar to ever run for POTUS.

Why do you CONS support Trump? I will ask again.. Why do you CONS support the biggest liar?

Not a Trump supporter but I don't think 60 million who voted for him are all stupid-lessor of two evils and all. Trouble is, the Democrats still don't have a decent candidate to oppose him-Biden is the only one and he is swinging left rapidly and forgetting everything. So you may see Trump re-elected for the same reason. By the way, what did that picture of Jesus have to do with anything?

 

[Dick Foster]

If I were a stupid, demodummie, left tarded, shitforbrains, anything havin to do with the truth would be the very last subject I'd want to bring up.

Trump lies constantly. You want to ignore that? YOu want to make a big deal over pocahontas but not lying about being part of the help during 9-11? You guys are truly scum

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

If I were a stupid, demodummie, left tarded, shitforbrains, anything havin to do with the truth would be the very last subject I'd want to bring up.

Trump lies constantly. You want to ignore that? YOu want to make a big deal over pocahontas but not lying about being part of the help during 9-11? You guys are truly scum

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

You're probably another one of those hypocrite old ass white Republicans.

You got a pension
You were paid better than todays workers are being paid
Your college was a lot more affordable

I posted earlier than Americans in Reagan's first term were able to save 10% of their salaries. By Bush 2's 2nd term, most people were negative 10%. That means not only were they no longer able to save, they went into debt. MAGA. LOL

Spot on. Donald can say this is the best economy ever but that is flat out wrong.

A great economy was when ONE salary supported a spouse and a kid (or two), a car and a mortgage. That would be in the 1950s-70s. That would be a family like mine: 3 story house, firmly middle class, two cars, two kids and a few pets. My mom was stay at home.

Now that same salary, converted into 2019 dollars, barely supports ONE person.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump lies constantly. You want to ignore that? YOu want to make a big deal over pocahontas but not lying about being part of the help during 9-11? You guys are truly scum

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

Well that's easy for you to say. You make 6 figures in your retirement. Wasn't that true when Obama was president? So for you, America has always been great. So why didn't you love Obama? Maybe because he didn't give you that big fat tax break Trump gave you?

Fact is, you were doing great before Trump. So your opinion means shit.

And you didn't answer me. How do you make so much in retirement? Do you get a big fat pension? I find it interesting baby boomer conservatives say we can't afford pension, but meanwhile they all receive pensions. How did you amass such a fortune? And how does your story relate to people living on $15 hr?

I bet you worked for a unionized company too.

I don't know your story so you'll have to tell us all about yourself. I can't diagnose your hypocrisy or bullshit without knowing how you make 6 figures in your retirement.

 

[Dick Foster]

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

Well that's easy for you to say. You make 6 figures in your retirement. Wasn't that true when Obama was president? So for you, America has always been great. So why didn't you love Obama? Maybe because he didn't give you that big fat tax break Trump gave you?

Fact is, you were doing great before Trump. So your opinion means shit.

And you didn't answer me. How do you make so much in retirement? Do you get a big fat pension? I find it interesting baby boomer conservatives say we can't afford pension, but meanwhile they all receive pensions. How did you amass such a fortune? And how does your story relate to people living on $15 hr?

I bet you worked for a unionized company too.

I don't know your story so you'll have to tell us all about yourself. I can't diagnose your hypocrisy or bullshit without knowing how you make 6 figures in your retirement.

Don't everybody look now but another loonie left moron has been triggered. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

Trump lies constantly. You want to ignore that? YOu want to make a big deal over pocahontas but not lying about being part of the help during 9-11? You guys are truly scum

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

 

[sealybobo]

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

Well that's easy for you to say. You make 6 figures in your retirement. Wasn't that true when Obama was president? So for you, America has always been great. So why didn't you love Obama? Maybe because he didn't give you that big fat tax break Trump gave you?

Fact is, you were doing great before Trump. So your opinion means shit.

And you didn't answer me. How do you make so much in retirement? Do you get a big fat pension? I find it interesting baby boomer conservatives say we can't afford pension, but meanwhile they all receive pensions. How did you amass such a fortune? And how does your story relate to people living on $15 hr?

I bet you worked for a unionized company too.

I don't know your story so you'll have to tell us all about yourself. I can't diagnose your hypocrisy or bullshit without knowing how you make 6 figures in your retirement.

Don't everybody look now but another loonie left moron has been triggered. LOL

You're just a new right wing nut job on this board. Relax. P.S. You are retired and make 6 figures annually. No shit you love Republicans ya fucking greedy ass rich white dude. No biggy though you'll be dead soon enough.

 

[iceberg]

Some people don't care about the truth. We call them Trump supporters or false conservatives aka CONS. Politicians lie and that is a given. Politicians make false statements that may or may not be lies but when Trump makes false statements and his false statements are lies. Att CONS: a lie is when you say something that you know is untrue. Is there anything about that you don't understand CONS/Trump Supporters/Fools?

Trump has set records for lying. He's even beaten Romney and Lyin Paul Ryan at the game. 76% of what Trump says are lies. The worst thing about Trump's constant is that his supporters know he's a liar and they support him anyway. And while Trump supporters are stupid, it is not because they are stupid that they believe his lies. The simple fact remains; Trump supporters are just no damn good and most of them are even worse than Trump.

Trump's lies are so often and so many that there is now a growing repository for his lies. Visit Trump Tower Of Lies and post it here and everywhere. Maybe there are some Trump supporter who are only stupid and do care about the truth.

Here is a question tRump supporters lack the honesty to answer. It is a fact that Trump lies at least 76% of the time making him the biggest liar to ever run for POTUS.

Why do you CONS support Trump? I will ask again.. Why do you CONS support the biggest liar?

As if an answer would matter.

Fuck off with the bait threads.

 

[Dick Foster]

It seems that your head is too far up your ass for you to be helped so you're doomed.

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

 

[sealybobo]

Most of what democrats call Trump's lies are just democrats lying about what Trump said.

Trump said he was there helping after 9-11. That's a lie.

President Donald Trump honored thousands that died as a result of the Sept. 11 terror attacks during remarks at the Pentagon Wednesday.

But the president also didn't miss a chance to again claim he helped in the aftermath of the terror attacks at ground zero.

"I was looking out of a window from a building at Midtown Manhattan directly at the World Trade Center when I saw a second plane at a tremendous speed go into the second tower. It was then that I realized the world was going to change. I was no longer going to be, and it could never, ever be that innocent place that I thought it was," Trump said.

"Soon after, I went down to Ground Zero with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could," he continued. "We were not alone. So many others were scattered around trying to do the same. They were all trying to help."

Only one problem. He wasn't there.

So, you minded Hillary said she was under sniper fire and you minded that Elizabeth Warren said she was part indian. So why don't you mind this?

Also Trump said his father was born in Germany. That too was a flat out lie.

Or does he have dementia?

 

[sealybobo]

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

 

[Dick Foster]

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

No one is talking about socialism rich boy. Silver spooner.

I'm no silver spooner. I earned every dime the old fashioned way.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Interview with Donald Trump on September 11, 2001.



Yes he was there exactly where he said he was.

 

[sealybobo]

How am I doomed? I make around $100K a year and I have no bills. I save over 20% of my income. I'm not one of you

“Most American workers aren’t saving at levels that will allow them to retire fully at age 65 at their current standard of living,” researchers at the Stanford Center on Longevity conclude in a 2018 report, “Seeing Our Way to Financial Security in the Age of Longevity.”


After considering factors such as the rate of return on investments, salary growth, life expectancy and Social Security benefits, the researchers project that, if you want to retire at age 65 and maintain your standard of living, you need to put 10 to 17 percent of your current income into a retirement account. And that’s if you start saving as early as age 25.

If you wait until 35 to start, you have to save 15 to 20 percent of your income to retire by 65. Keep in mind that this amount does not include your short-term savings, so it would be on top of any money you’re putting in an emergency fund, for example.

Most employees aren’t saving nearly that much, according to the report: “Based on our estimation, families age 25-64 are currently only saving a median of about 6 to 8 percent of income toward retirement.”

I'm not doomed. YOU ARE ya stupid fuck.

And it's not because they won't save. It's because

63% Of Americans Don't Have Enough Savings To Cover A $500 Emergency

The bottom 90 percent of households saved 10 percent of their income in the first Reagan administration. By 2006, their savings rate was nearly negative-10 percent.

Thanks Reagan and BUSHz`

Well I've got you beat and I don't even work anymore. But you're still doomed to a lifetime of cluelessness and stupidity.

If you are richer than I am, please stop telling people who are poorer than I am that your way works for them/us. You are wrong. Out of touch. Sure it works for you but you're in the top what percent?

I'm in the top 5-10%. Even I know you are are full of shit. You and Trump only what what works best for you. Thanks for admitting you are not one of them/us.

I say us even though I'm not really one of them either. I just don't try to lie to them and tell them that what works best for rich guys like us is what will also work for them. We know historically that's a lie.

I don't think even you could make sense of your bullshit for you. You talk like a raving lunatic. Who let you out of your cage?

How about this

Now a radical idea to guarantee U.S. workers a cut of their company’s profits could one day force employers to cough up more of the wealth.

While established profit-sharing and equity-ownership programs already give a financial boost to many American workers, and enjoy bipartisan support in Washington, some advocates for workers’ rights believe more must be done. They want lawmakers to order U.S. companies to pay workers a cash dividend tied to profits, just like any shareholder receives.

Call it profit sharing 2.0. Its supporters envision a day when large privately owned and publicly traded U.S. companies would be required by law to transfer newly issued shares into a collective fund for their workers. Employees wouldn’t individually own the shares, which would wield voting power and be held in a worker-controlled trust, but would receive regular dividends. The fund would be optional for small companies.

“Granting employees an equity ‘stake and a say’ in the companies that they work for means that when corporate executives decide on the level of dividends to be paid to shareholders, the workers who created the profits will not be left in the dust,”

The U.K.’s minority Labour Party soon took up the charge. In September 2018 it endorsed a policy requiring U.K. firms with more than 250 employees to transfer 1% of company stock into an inclusive ownership fund for workers every year for 10 years, giving the fund 10% control of the company after a decade. Dividends from company profits would be capped at 500 British pounds annually (currently just over $600), with the British government collecting any surplus to help pay for social services. If an employee leaves a company, he or she forfeits their interest in the fund.

Inclusive ownership funds presumably would be enacted under a Labour-led government. It’s stirred heated debate in Britain, and surely would seem to be a polarizing topic for Americans. Last May, for example, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders grabbed headlines when he told The Washington Post that an employee-controlled fund similar to the U.K. model should be mandated for U.S. companies, along with giving workers seats on corporate boards. But even many progressive policy experts concede that forcing companies to establish inclusive ownership funds won’t fly with most U.S. politicians or business leaders.

Popular with American workers
Maybe so, but it’s understandably popular with U.S. workers: 55% of Americans support inclusive ownership funds, while just 20% are opposed, according to a March 2019 poll by Democracy Collaborative, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive research group, and YouGov, a U.K.-based market-research firm.

You're a lunatic. Socalism doesn't work anywhere. It never has and it never will and that's why Europe's economy is on its ass right now while their society is breaking down altogether. Get a clue dumbass.

Profit sharing is not socialism.

Back when 35% of American workers were in unions companies were FORCED to pay us what we were worth. Unions brought up even non union wages. Since union membership went from 35% down to about 9% of our workforce, corporations have stopped paying employees their fair share. Now the CEO and his white collar boys get all the profit sharing. And the shareholders/investors. Workers aren't paid what they should be paid.

This is not socialism. Are you so stupid you think it is? How did a dummy like you earn so much money? Oh yea, it was easier when you were working. I forgot.

GM has been enormously profitable and organized workers who sacrificed during the auto industry’s crisis in 2007 are expecting a bigger share of the gains.

The company did not specify the wages or health care coverage offered, except to say it put raises on the table and promised to “retain nationally-leading health care benefits,” a formulation that could easily mean higher out-of-pocket expenses for workers.

And Republicans allowed manufacturing companies to go overseas to break unions. Unless more working Americans wake up, America will never be great again. Except for rich people like you and me.

No one wants socialism. That reply tells me you are either stupid or being intellectually dishonest here.