Under Bush US's 400 richest doubled their wealth

[Skull Pilot]

You are a conservative and you have defended the Bush team in the past fella and everyone knows it.

Prove it

find me a post where I have defended GW

The only thing I will agree with you on is that yes I am a conservative. Specifically a fiscal conservative but I am a true libertarian when it comes to people's personal lives.

But since when does being fiscally conservative equal being Repudlican?

 

[Red Dawn]

It sure fits my predictions that eventually no one will admitt they were a Bush voter.


Dude go take a look at your old threads, none are attacking anyone but Dems.

Its almost impossible to find a two time bush voter these days who will fess up to having enthusiatically voted for the moron twice in a row, and defended him for eight years.

Anyone who uses the word "Dimocrat" , is a rightwing radio talk fan. Using that word is a dead giveaway for a rush limbaugh or sean hannity fan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Democrats are going to fix what the GOP neglected for 8 years.

We are also going to undo the wrongs you have done.

So the stimulous package is only half of the solution. The other half is to close all the tax break loopholes, re-regulate, socialize whoever we bailout & possibly we have to freeze some bank accounts.

and I haven't done any wrongs. I run a business and pay my taxes unlike your Dimocratic heroes.

you do realize the largest part of your beloved stimulus plan is for appropriations, otherwise known as earmarks, that will not stimulate anything.

do you realize that the infrastructure allotment is less than what was spent on construction last year and won't be spent until at least 2010?

there is no stimulus in the stimulus plan.

Where was all this concern for the infrastructure a year or so ago when I posted about it and was excoriated?

I am not concerned about infrastructure, how do you get that?

I am merely pointing out a fact that the stimulus you support does nothing for infrastructure. You know that spending that is supposed to rejuvenate the economy?

How can you support a stimulus that does nothing for infrastructure?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It sure fits my predictions that eventually no one will admitt they were a Bush voter.


Dude go take a look at your old threads, none are attacking anyone but Dems.

Its almost impossible to find a two time bush voter these days who will fess up to having enthusiatically voted for the moron twice in a row, and defended him for eight years.

Anyone who uses the word "Dimocrat" , is a rightwing radio talk fan. Using that word is a dead giveaway for a rush limbaugh or sean hannity fan.

what about rePUDlican or are you too dim to have caught the intentional misspelling all these months?

 

[Truthmatters]

Same old stupid ideas but in the same breath saying they dont like Bush.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Same old stupid ideas but in the same breath saying they dont like Bush.

still haven't found a thread where I have ever supported GW huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

what about rePUDlican or are you too dim to have caught the intentional misspelling all these months?


The key word being months.


The last few months you may have not defended him but you sure didnt start threads to excoriate them like you do the dems.

Do you really not know yourself?

 

[Skull Pilot]

what about rePUDlican or are you too dim to have caught the intentional misspelling all these months?


The key word being months.


The last few months you may have not defended him but you sure didnt start threads to excoriate them like you do the dems.

Do you really not know yourself?

BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE IS HE????

I choose to live in the present.

But please keep looking for that thread where I have supported GW.

 

[Amanda]

C'mon enough of the personal stuff, get back to the issue.

 

[Skull Pilot]

C'mon enough of the personal stuff, get back to the issue.

that's all they have left

When asked a simple question about the stimulus and how it does not actually contain all that great infrastructure spending that is supposed to return $1.58 for every dollar spent, and which is one of the main reasons they support the bill, they resort to personal attacks and try to tell me who I voted for.

It's sad really.

 

[editec]

the source of wealth is the value the market places on the end result of labor and not the labor itself.

Only in a market economy, Skull.

if it were the labor itself then we could all just dig ditches and fill them up again and we would all be rich. 300 people working 40 hours a week to produce something no one wants is not producing wealth.

Hmmm...good point.

I need to be clearer when I say that labor is the producer of all wealth. That isn't true.

Obviously, I should have pointed out that productive labor which creates what people need or want is the source of all wealth.

I hadn't really thought about the true implications of the word "wealth".

Wealth is a relative term. Wealth implies that SOMEBODY will want something that you have, doesn't it?

YOu can want it, which makes it wealth, or somebody else can want it, which also makes it wealth, but it's the WANTING that gives it value.

Wealth might be something that you have because you want what you have, but generally speaking in the REAL WORLD APPLICATION of the word, wealth is having what SOMEBODY will want.

Excellent point, Skull.


All wealth, ultimately required HUMAN DESIRE for a things intrinsic value first.


Then the creation of that thing inevitably requires work to harvest or produce it, before it can truly be called wealth.

I will attempt to be be careful about using that term in the future.

Nevertheless, all things which we think of as WEALTH require human to harvest or produce them.

The intrinsic value of an apple on tree requires human desire for the apple, AND human work to harvest it, too.

If one hopes that the apple will become something greater than the sum total of its intrinsic value to the YOU, (the wealth you perceive in it) it requires a market where others percieve it's intinsic value to THEM, too.

Have I missed anything?

 

[dilloduck]

nope---It would just be nice if America produced things that other people valued and at a price they could afford.

 

[sealybobo]

C'mon enough of the personal stuff, get back to the issue.

that's all they have left

When asked a simple question about the stimulus and how it does not actually contain all that great infrastructure spending that is supposed to return $1.58 for every dollar spent, and which is one of the main reasons they support the bill, they resort to personal attacks and try to tell me who I voted for.

It's sad really.

We told you for 8 years you were a ******* moron and we ended up being correct.

So now you are suggesting that we don't know what we are doing? Why don't you just watch and see.

We told you this crash was going to occur and you mocked us. I even have emails from co-workers who remind me of you and they said, "sealybobo, you always think the sky is falling". Well guess what? It did fall.

ThomHartmann.com - How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

 

[Mr. President]

Why so much hostility? So many of you are crying about the rich being rich and yet you consume the products they provide every day. If your problem is with the wealthy class then you need to provide stiff competition or shut up about it.

 

[Truthmatters]

C'mon enough of the personal stuff, get back to the issue.

You often ignore the facts.

According to a table Zandi included with his written July 24, 2008, testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, "General Aid to State Governments" would boost real GDP by $1.36 for every dollar spent, while "Extending UI [unemployment insurance] Benefits" and providing a "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps" would increase real GDP by $1.64 and $1.73 per dollar spent, respectfully:





Grants to state and local governments (such as increased assistance for education) might not increase state spending for the programs designated in the grants but, instead, might free up funds that the states would otherwise spend on those programs. States could use those extra funds in a variety of ways: direct purchases of goods and services (or smaller cuts in such purchases), tax cuts (or smaller tax increases), transfer payments, or reduced borrowing. The impact of grants therefore would depend on how states used them.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901300014?f=h_latest

 

[Amanda]

C'mon enough of the personal stuff, get back to the issue.

You often ignore the facts.

According to a table Zandi included with his written July 24, 2008, testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, "General Aid to State Governments" would boost real GDP by $1.36 for every dollar spent, while "Extending UI [unemployment insurance] Benefits" and providing a "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps" would increase real GDP by $1.64 and $1.73 per dollar spent, respectfully:





Grants to state and local governments (such as increased assistance for education) might not increase state spending for the programs designated in the grants but, instead, might free up funds that the states would otherwise spend on those programs. States could use those extra funds in a variety of ways: direct purchases of goods and services (or smaller cuts in such purchases), tax cuts (or smaller tax increases), transfer payments, or reduced borrowing. The impact of grants therefore would depend on how states used them.

Media Matters - Brzezinski suggests "welfare" provisions in stimulus bill don't stimulate the economy -- economists disagree

Um.... I think you may have copy and pasted the wrong thing.... I don't get what this has to do with stopping personal attacks OR the issue of the super rich getting super richer. I think grants to states could be an interesting issue to discuss, but what it has to do with this isn't clear to me.

 

[Againsheila]

This is true in a lot of what I have seen Amanda post... I give her a lot of credit... she appears to be a hard working young woman... with the proper attitude of people earning their way, not supporting a Robin Hood mentality

When the rich or white collar workers take from the poor this is okay though?

Come on guys when you use and abuse someone elses labor you are in effect a thief for the rich or the upper middleclass with investments.

When you use a poor man's lower credit score to justify higher insurance rates you effectively robbed from the poor to give to the rich. Low credit scores are not necessarily from non payment of bills. If you have not borrowed money you may have a lower credit score and therefore be charged extra by the rigged system that is now in place.

When credit companies make loans to people they now do not have enough to actually make timely payments and charge that extra 45 bucks a month for a ten dollar two day late payment you have basically allowed and assisted the rich to steal from the poor.

A poor family with two parents working 40 and 50 hour weeks are considered lazy by a few of the posters because they work at jobs that produce a product via a service industry that creates paper debt using other peoples money. And people wonder why this countries economy is in the shitter.

ok--how can a family with two regular incomes be considered poor ?

Have you seen the cost of living today? Have you seen what minimum wage is? Minimum wage is at the lowest spending power in history and more than 75% of those on minimum wage are adults, not teenagers. An apple costs $1.00 today and that's on sale, an apartment, where I live is $700 for a SMALL apartment. Our heating bill for last month was well over $400, and we keep a cold house, heck I'm wearing a blanket right now and I'm still cold.

At our local mall, there are no fulltime jobs, they are all parttime. I know people that are working 2 and 3 jobs just to pay the bills, that's without anything left over.

 

[DiamondDave]

When the rich or white collar workers take from the poor this is okay though?

Come on guys when you use and abuse someone elses labor you are in effect a thief for the rich or the upper middleclass with investments.

When you use a poor man's lower credit score to justify higher insurance rates you effectively robbed from the poor to give to the rich. Low credit scores are not necessarily from non payment of bills. If you have not borrowed money you may have a lower credit score and therefore be charged extra by the rigged system that is now in place.

When credit companies make loans to people they now do not have enough to actually make timely payments and charge that extra 45 bucks a month for a ten dollar two day late payment you have basically allowed and assisted the rich to steal from the poor.

A poor family with two parents working 40 and 50 hour weeks are considered lazy by a few of the posters because they work at jobs that produce a product via a service industry that creates paper debt using other peoples money. And people wonder why this countries economy is in the shitter.

ok--how can a family with two regular incomes be considered poor ?

Have you seen the cost of living today? Have you seen what minimum wage is? Minimum wage is at the lowest spending power in history and more than 75% of those on minimum wage are adults, not teenagers. An apple costs $1.00 today and that's on sale, an apartment, where I live is $700 for a SMALL apartment. Our heating bill for last month was well over $400, and we keep a cold house, heck I'm wearing a blanket right now and I'm still cold.

At our local mall, there are no fulltime jobs, they are all parttime. I know people that are working 2 and 3 jobs just to pay the bills, that's without anything left over.

Minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a wage for a grown adult or family leader to operate on for a sole job.. it was intended as a starter wage for those entering the work force

Face it.. you you are a 30 year old spouse and parent of 2.. and yu are still working a minimum wage job.. you better start looking at yourself as to why you are still only making that much.. even a retarded person can be promoted and making more at Mickey D's after years in the work force

 

[Mr. President]

I don't think the argument is against the bail out in general as you are assuming. The argument is against what measures are being used to specify where the funds are going. If we put money into schools, state level grants and so forth then the economy would see a prosperous effect. But the truth of the matter is the bail out is not regulated and the money is being handed out to places where it is more personal than economically beneficial for the parties involved. So while the sugar coated version of this proposal you have posted about is acceptable in theory it fails to state the reality of the situation.

As per the use of welfare, we have to look at the possibility of states becoming dependent upon this welfare. If this becomes the case a bail out would in turn become necessary federal funding. A slippery slope indeed! The proposition needs to be an immediate boost to the affected regions in a way that will coincide with the ability to function without further government assistance. It is my belief that we are finding it all to easy to rely on the welfare option in America because that is an area where America knows the government will spend to maintain.

So a revision of the qualifications to get welfare as well as government grants for care providing centers for the working class is necessary before granting the money; otherwise we will be in the same situation in another 20 years. Monitoring school spending is also an important measure. I have seen schools spend more on a football field in one year than three years of educational materiel. This spending is counterproductive to stimulation of the United States economy and actually detrimental in three major ways. One, the providers of new educational resources are seeing a decrease in consumers. Two, students are being taught less adequate subject material than is available thus less prepared for the college arena. Three, a High School diploma holds less importance because the standard level of education that was once a high school diploma is not reached until an associates degree is acquired.

So the money issue is not one of just where to put the money but how to regulate the use of funds in order to ensure that the stimulus regenerates the economy but also causes it to run in a self sufficient manner where a future bail out will not be necessary. Once this happens I will agree with a government stimulus package but until then it is sugar coated privatized funding.

 

[Skull Pilot]

C'mon enough of the personal stuff, get back to the issue.

that's all they have left

When asked a simple question about the stimulus and how it does not actually contain all that great infrastructure spending that is supposed to return $1.58 for every dollar spent, and which is one of the main reasons they support the bill, they resort to personal attacks and try to tell me who I voted for.

It's sad really.

We told you for 8 years you were a ******* moron and we ended up being correct.

So now you are suggesting that we don't know what we are doing? Why don't you just watch and see.

We told you this crash was going to occur and you mocked us. I even have emails from co-workers who remind me of you and they said, "sealybobo, you always think the sky is falling". Well guess what? It did fall.

ThomHartmann.com - How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

since i haven't been posting here for 8 years, you obviously have me confused with someone else.

and I have been reading about the mortgage bubble for a long time and i knew the bubble would eventually pop but unlike you I will put the blame on government meddling in the economy and the government waste of taxpayer money in that scam of a bail out.

That you think more and more of your money should go to the same corrupt government that is the cause of this mess makes you a ******* moron not me.