Reagan Helped Destroy The Middle Class

[Common]

President Ronald Reagan remains a venerated figure (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165902/americans-rate-jfk-top-modern-president.aspx) in American politics, even as folks on the left have been taking (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/reagans-toll-middle-class) a more critical look (http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/) at his economic legacy in recent years.So perhaps it's not a surprise that Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders would not think well of the Gipper. But when Sanders took to the Senate floor Thursday evening to offer a broad vision for how to do something to help the declining middle class, he offered a stunning chart that showed just how poorly most Americans have fared during economic recoveries since the advent of Reaganomics.
The chart starts by showing that in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 percent of the country captured most of the growth in income during rebounds from tough times. But then came the Reagan era, and what George H. W. Bush once dubbed "voodoo economics." After Reagan implemented his policies, the top 10 percent grabbed nearly 80 percent of the growth in incomes coming out of the oil crises of the late '70s.

"Whoa! What happens in 1982?" Sanders said, noting the dramatic reversal in his diagram. "Well, Ronald Reagan is president, and the good news is we are into trickle-down economics."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/ronald-reagan-middle-class_n_6578130.html

[Mac-7]

I could not find a link to the chart in the huffpo story.

Just a small video of the former Marxist talking about the chart.

[nathanbforrest45]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a maroon Sanders and the OP are

[Ransom]

Bernie Sanders thinks Reagan is still President:grampa:

[PolWatch]

one of my favorites from Ronnie:

The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983.

[domer76]

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

What a maroon Sanders and the OP are

I see you don't debate the point

[Common]

I see you don't debate the point

Simple reason, hes incapable

[Common]

There is no debate here. There is no trickle down since 1982 Reagans voodoo economics is what you see today. Income inequality so wide that even economists worry about it.

Reagan gave huge tax cuts to the richest of scumbags and made the entire tax cut up by a HUGE increase in payroll deductions for everyone else.

[Peter1469]

The article is using French economist Thomas Piketty and his epic tome "Capital in the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067443000X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=067443000X&linkCode=as2&tag=thesmirkingchimp)" as its basis. I have already debunked many of its conclusions in this forum before.

It overstates income inequality, by example, not including government benefits to the poor and middle class in the comparison.

The rich are indeed richer, but that is largely do to the difference between capital and labor. The value of labor is set by the market. The value of capital is much easier to manipulate and create wealth.

Taxing them at the same rate is not going to greatly change income inequality- it will lower the net worth of the rich, but it won't help the middle class and the poor- in fact it would hurt those who have their retirement savings in the market.

[Peter1469]

There is no debate here. There is no trickle down since 1982 Reagans voodoo economics is what you see today. Income inequality so wide that even economists worry about it.

Reagan gave huge tax cuts to the richest of scumbags and made the entire tax cut up by a HUGE increase in payroll deductions for everyone else.


Describe what trickle down is in economic terms.

It is a political term used to demonize a particular economic theory.

[Mac-7]

Globalization is the primary cause for stagnation of the middle class.

in the 1950 's almost everything America consumed was made in America by Americans.

but now almost everything is imported and made by foreigners.

[Cigar]

The chart starts by showing that in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 percent of the country captured most of the growth in income during rebounds from tough times. But then came the Reagan era, and what George H. W. Bush once dubbed "voodoo economics." After Reagan implemented his policies, the top 10 percent grabbed nearly 80 percent of the growth in incomes coming out of the oil crises of the late '70s.


"Whoa! What happens in 1982?" Sanders said, noting the dramatic reversal in his diagram. "Well, Ronald Reagan is president, and the good news is we are into trickle-down economics."

The socialist Democrat is certainly aware that other factors such as technology, the waning of the union movement and globalization all played their roles, but his data makes for an awfully stark portrait.

"Frankly, this is a metaphor," Sanders said. "This is an example of exactly what trickle-down economics is all about."


VIDEO (Chart Included) & MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/ronald-reagan-middle-class_n_6578130.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Denials to follow :grin:

[Cigar]

Opps ... Sorry ... didn't see the dup post ... Mods .. Do your Thang :laugh:

[Cigar]

Bernie Sanders thinks Reagan is still President:grampa:

His Policies are still around the necks of The GOP :jackoff::baby:

[Chris]

From link: "The socialist Democrat is certainly aware that other factors such as technology, the waning of the union movement and globalization all played their roles, but his data agenda makes for an awfully stark portrait."

[Chris]

Keep in mind the rich have only gotten richer under Obama.

But...

http://i.snag.gy/d6jgy.jpg

@ Reaganomics Beats Obama's 'Middle Class Economics' By A Country Mile (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/013015-737309-obama-has-presided-over-weakest-recovery-in-modern-times.htm#ixzz3QPm5lA9G)

[Mac-7]

Without Reagan America would be as bad as europe

[Chris]

Anti-Middle-Class Economics: What Obama’s 529 Grab Revealed (http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/28/anti-middle-class-economics-what-obamas-529-grab-revealed/)


...Megan McArdle suggests, quite reasonably, that this is a desperate move by those who need to finance ever bigger government and are simply going where the money is: the vast American middle class. You can understand why the champions of big government would be slavering over the very thing that defines the middle class, its savings. As she points out, 529s are not the first target. There have already been trial balloons about raiding 401(k)s and IRAs. The truly committed leftist looks upon our private savings as a vast reserve of capital unfairly withheld from its proper function of servicing the needs of the state.

I think that’s the real explanation. This is not so much a rational calculation about how to finance the behemoth state. This is an admission by a man who has no more election campaigns to run, and therefore no pragmatic constraints, about his real outlook and real preferences. A president who just a few weeks ago hailed the triumph of a supposed “middle-class economics” is revealing his hatred and contempt for the middle class....

[Chris]

An interesting correlation, but don't let that distract you from the fact income inequality has continued to grow even under Obama:

http://i.snag.gy/UXSp3.jpg

[PolWatch]

Duplicate threads merged

[TrixWitch]

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Having lived the first 14 years of my life under socialism I can attest to the fact that it creates a middle class, but that middle class is akin to what life is like in the top portion of the US lower class. Everyone will have the same amount but that same amount is irregular and of a third world standard of living.

I don't necessarily disagree that Reaganomics was not compatible with the growth of markets and a higher standard of living for the middle class, but I don't think that you can lay the blame at his feet when America's true downward spiral began when it shifted from an economy of mixed systems (manufacturing, agriculture, resource management, and services) to one of service only. That came during the 90's with the opening of trade to former and current communist countries who gladly received the manufacturing and agricultural jobs, leaving the US with a service-oriented economy as its base. No country can survive as an economic power in a world of protectionism with only a single prominent market type. Diversity is required.

[Mac-7]

In the late 70's the shift to a world economy had already started.

chrysler chairman lee iacocca said before Reagan even took office that

"We don't make things in America anymore. If this keeps up someday you and I will be sitting here selling insurance to each other."

[Chris]

In the late 70's the shift to a world economy had already started.

chrysler chairman lee iacocca said before Reagan even took office that

"We don't make things in America anymore. If this keeps up someday you and I will be sitting here selling insurance to each other."


Hate to break it to you, mac, but the economy has always been global. Why protectionists like you think the US can isolate herself from trade is hard to imagine beyond some emotional patriotism I'm sure you'll spout.

[TrixWitch]

Hate to break it to you, mac, but the economy has always been global. Why protectionists like you think the US can isolate herself from trade is hard to imagine beyond some emotional patriotism I'm sure you'll spout.

Every nation is protectionist to some degree. We do not live in a free market globalist economy. We live in a global economy impacted by constraints, and have allowed the good of our own nation state to suffer as we tailor our economy around services. Not smart.

[Common]

The article is using French economist Thomas Piketty and his epic tome "Capital in the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067443000X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=067443000X&linkCode=as2&tag=thesmirkingchimp)" as its basis. I have already debunked many of its conclusions in this forum before.

It overstates income inequality, by example, not including government benefits to the poor and middle class in the comparison.

The rich are indeed richer, but that is largely do to the difference between capital and labor. The value of labor is set by the market. The value of capital is much easier to manipulate and create wealth.

Taxing them at the same rate is not going to greatly change income inequality- it will lower the net worth of the rich, but it won't help the middle class and the poor- in fact it would hurt those who have their retirement savings in the market.

Pete I believe you have debunked it on your word, but I will have to disagree on income equality being over stated. If anything its understated, the evidence is quite clear on that

[Chris]

Every nation is protectionist to some degree. We do not live in a free market globalist economy. We live in a global economy impacted by constraints, and have allowed the good of our own nation state to suffer as we tailor our economy around services. Not smart.

And such protectionism to the benefit of the state comes at the cost of our people.

[The Xl]

All of the modern Presidents have chipped away at the middle class, including but not limited to Reagan.

[Bob]

I could not find a link to the chart in the huffpo story.

Just a small video of the former Marxist talking about the chart.

If you want a Marxist lecture, get Sanders lecture.

[Bob]

The way to see what Reagan's policies did, rather normal economics in fact, is to study the country in his era by quintiles. The fact is people move into and out of quintiles. A lot that are blamed for being richer were in the poor class or middle class. Having them prosper, but measured by the end point only, is a false way but it is how the Democrats get away blaming Reagan.

Study the economic quintiles people.

Take Bill Gates for instance. If you only measure him once he got rich, you have a false picture of Gates. And even the fox of Berkshire Hathaway and even Mitt Romney, are not measured from the bottom up. They are treated as they were always rich.

Gates started in his garage as did Steve Jobs.

These democrats are nuts if they think they can fool the properly educated republican.

[Peter1469]

Pete I believe you have debunked it on your word, but I will have to disagree on income equality being over stated. If anything its understated, the evidence is quite clear on that

Piketty's numbers omit government benefits paid to the middle and poor classes. I will leave the math to you to decide the over or under stated part.

[TrixWitch]

And such protectionism to the benefit of the state comes at the cost of our people.

Opportunity costs are easier to swallow than hunger. I don't feel the need to continue subsidizing the US under-employed population with my money because corporations with one leg in, one leg out wish to reap the benefits. We live in a protectionist society with a population whose educational requirements are unfit for the type of service based economy we've allowed our country to become. What few new jobs we might get from these types of tradeoffs do nothing to cover the large population of unemployed or underemployed with no quick means of retraining and readjusting the system.

I know libertarian theory and I think its grand in a world of the future where there are no nations and not nations who use tariffs and taxes to keep labor or export it, but we're not living in that one and I'm paying taxes in this one.

[Bob]

Pete I believe you have debunked it on your word, but I will have to disagree on income equality being over stated. If anything its understated, the evidence is quite clear on that

This remains the most foolish way to measure the economy or incomes.

Start with Bill Gates. Bill is more typical of the present rich than popularly supposed. Starting as a college drop out and working in his small garage, he moved from the bottom quintile or next to the bottom and over a few years worked up higher and higher. He could have whined how unfair distribution was but he pulled up his sleeves and made a poor living, then a decent living and at a point became rich. But he slid up the quintiles. So did Warren Buffett. Far more of the rich today were starting out in the lower class are living in luxury. This fiction that the only group to prosper is those who started out rich is a fairy tale.

All you have to do is study those who are today rich. Take Oprah Winfrey for instance. She went from being sexually abused to uber rich. She is proof a black woman can prosper. Work is the key and a plan and measuring your goals.

[Bob]

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Having lived the first 14 years of my life under socialism I can attest to the fact that it creates a middle class, but that middle class is akin to what life is like in the top portion of the US lower class. Everyone will have the same amount but that same amount is irregular and of a third world standard of living.

I don't necessarily disagree that Reaganomics was not compatible with the growth of markets and a higher standard of living for the middle class, but I don't think that you can lay the blame at his feet when America's true downward spiral began when it shifted from an economy of mixed systems (manufacturing, agriculture, resource management, and services) to one of service only. That came during the 90's with the opening of trade to former and current communist countries who gladly received the manufacturing and agricultural jobs, leaving the US with a service-oriented economy as its base. No country can survive as an economic power in a world of protectionism with only a single prominent market type. Diversity is required.

I agree with almost all of that. Reagan actually was a rather conventional economist. It was those, mostly Democrats, that enjoyed attaching labels to his conventional brand of economics. This nonsense called trickle down was not the Reagan economics. It angered the Democrats that Reagan wanted to bring Government into balance. They hated it so much they created fiction as to what Reagan did to the nations economy.

Lets add that when Kennedy slashed taxes for all classes, it was not called helping the rich. Kennedy was presented as a hero of the Democrats though he could be accused of helping the rich. Nobody called it Kennedy economics nor trickle down economics.

[Chris]

Opportunity costs are easier to swallow than hunger. I don't feel the need to continue subsidizing the US under-employed population with my money because corporations with one leg in, one leg out wish to reap the benefits. We live in a protectionist society with a population whose educational requirements are unfit for the type of service based economy we've allowed our country to become. What few new jobs we might get from these types of tradeoffs do nothing to cover the large population of unemployed or underemployed with no quick means of retraining and readjusting the system.

I know libertarian theory and I think its grand in a world of the future where there are no nations and not nations who use tariffs and taxes to keep labor or export it, but we're not living in that one and I'm paying taxes in this one.


I think the question to ask is why are some corporations outsourcing and moving overseas. Could it be taxes and regulations, wage controls and tariffs imposed by our government making us less economically free? I believe so. They outsource and move to escape that burden so they can survive. People complain about excessive profits but profit margins of corporations like GMC and Walmart have remained steady or fallen. It can't be greed. Did they remain here and go out of business the jobs would be lost just the same. Then again I don't see people standing in employment lines or outside soup kitchens, no, people find work where we have competitive advantage.

None of what I'm saying is libertarian, it's basic economics.

[Bob]

Keep in mind the rich have only gotten richer under Obama.

But...

http://i.snag.gy/d6jgy.jpg

@ Reaganomics Beats Obama's 'Middle Class Economics' By A Country Mile (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/013015-737309-obama-has-presided-over-weakest-recovery-in-modern-times.htm#ixzz3QPm5lA9G)

I mailed that to my list.

[Bob]

I think the question to ask is why are some corporations outsourcing and moving overseas. Could it be taxes and regulations, wage controls and tariffs imposed by our government making us less economically free? I believe so. They outsource and move to escape that burden so they can survive. People complain about excessive profits but profit margins of corporations like GMC and Walmart have remained steady or fallen. It can't be greed. Did they remain here and go out of business the jobs would be lost just the same. Then again I don't see people standing in employment lines or outside soup kitchens, no, people find work where we have competitive advantage.

None of what I'm saying is libertarian, it's basic economics.

Certainly true. Most don't look at outsourcing from the corporation point of view.

If an act happens, examine why, not the result.

[TrixWitch]

I think the question to ask is why are some corporations outsourcing and moving overseas. Could it be taxes and regulations, wage controls and tariffs imposed by our government making us less economically free? I believe so. They outsource and move to escape that burden so they can survive. People complain about excessive profits but profit margins of corporations like GMC and Walmart have remained steady or fallen. It can't be greed. Did they remain here and go out of business the jobs would be lost just the same.

Walmart is a store. Stores don't move labor overseas. They may expand and open other stores overseas. Stores like Walmart will always profit in an economy like ours because they provide cheap goods that are cheaply made so that they can sell more of them. Our current economy is perfect for a company whose business model is that of Walmarts. Why would they close stores here?




Then again I don't see people standing in employment lines or outside soup kitchens, no, people find work where we have competitive advantage.

That's because unemployment services are online. I have no idea where you live but the statistics on under-employed, jobless, and those requiring public assistance right now show the US is in serious economic shape with a downsized middle class.

Is it because of taxes? Partly. It's also because we cannot compete with China's command currency at our inflation rates and cannot begin to compete with labor that's between $1.50 and $2.00 an hour especially now that oil prices are relatively low.



None of what I'm saying is libertarian, it's basic economics.

It's economic theory which libertarians excel at spouting. I've gotten to listen to a lot of it and while I agree with the theory, much like the theories of politics in practice people don't have the guts for letting their trousers down. We have to make due and adjust to the situation we have.

[Mac-7]

Hate to break it to you, mac, but the economy has always been global. Why protectionists like you think the US can isolate herself from trade is hard to imagine beyond some emotional patriotism I'm sure you'll spout.

You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way .

yes we have always been a trading nation but not to the extent that we have become.

because we used to be smart enough to protect our domestic markets too.

[Peter1469]

You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way .

yes we have always been a trading nation but not to the extent that we have become.

because we used to be smart enough to protect our domestic markets too.

:shocked:

Mac, don't be so hard on yourself. Strive to do better.

For instance, just because someone isn't as far right as David Duke doesn't mean you get to call him a lib.

[Chris]

You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way .

yes we have always been a trading nation but not to the extent that we have become.

because we used to be smart enough to protect our domestic markets too.


Predictable emotional reaction. Here, mac, shake it off...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWlot6h_JM

[Chris]

Walmart is a store. Stores don't move labor overseas. They may expand and open other stores overseas. Stores like Walmart will always profit in an economy like ours because they provide cheap goods that are cheaply made so that they can sell more of them. Our current economy is perfect for a company whose business model is that of Walmarts. Why would they close stores here?



That's because unemployment services are online. I have no idea where you live but the statistics on under-employed, jobless, and those requiring public assistance right now show the US is in serious economic shape with a downsized middle class.

Is it because of taxes? Partly. It's also because we cannot compete with China's command currency at our inflation rates and cannot begin to compete with labor that's between $1.50 and $2.00 an hour especially now that oil prices are relatively low.



It's economic theory which libertarians excel at spouting. I've gotten to listen to a lot of it and while I agree with the theory, much like the theories of politics in practice people don't have the guts for letting their trousers down. We have to make due and adjust to the situation we have.



Walmart purchases product from overseas. Same thing. Raise their taxes and they will be forced to find more cheaply overseas. They are successful because they provide many what they value.

Unemployment is high because we're in the middle of the Great Recession, not because some companies outsource or move overseas.

Why would we want to compete with China when they provide us what we value cheaply. That hurts the Chinese, not us.

The economics I adhere to are Austrian School, which has some association with libertarianism. But I'm not presenting libertarian arguments. Actually, my arguments go back far as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

I agree we need to adjust. The question is how. In the case of Chinese competition, should we raise tariffs and make US consumers pay even more? How would that help US citizens? I see no evidence that would increase jobs here.

[Peter1469]

WalMart does more than that: because of its massive economies of scale it strong arms suppliers and forces them to operate on much smaller profit margins.

[Mac-7]

:shocked:

Mac, don't be so hard on yourself. Strive to do better.

For instance, just because someone isn't as far right as David Duke doesn't mean you get to call him a lib.

i was sticking to the topic.

Its you and Chris who are off topic attacking me.

you throw the rules at me but you are the one breaking the rules not me.

[TrixWitch]

Walmart purchases product from overseas. Same thing.

No, it is not nearly the same thing. Walmart is not a manufacturer. It is a retailer.




Raise their taxes and they will be forced to find more cheaply overseas.

No. They will raise the price of goods in their stores.




They are successful because they provide many what they value.

They are successful because they can provide cheap goods. Many corporations provide goods we value. Walmart is able to provide cheap goods, at cheap prices. This ensures customers on tight budgets will shop there today and again when their cheap good falls apart.

It is not in corporate best interest to supply lasting products that we need, hence why only luxury items and non-essentials are well made.




Unemployment is high because we're in the middle of the Great Recession, not because some companies outsource or move overseas.


We are in a great recession because companies have outsourced thus destroying the capacity of blue collar America to consume more than essentials and because we purposefully created a housing bubble which we could not sustain indefinitely and everything hit like an economic perfect storm, allowing consolidation of particular industries and government to become "owner/caretaker". One would almost think it happened on purpose.



Why would we want to compete with China when they provide us what we value cheaply. That hurts the Chinese, not us.


It hurts those of us who are not affected by outsourcing, and we would want to compete with the Chinese because they are our enemy and want to compete with us.

China wants to win at this game.



The economics I adhere to are Austrian School, which has some association with libertarianism. But I'm not presenting libertarian arguments. Actually, my arguments go back far as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.


The Scottish Enlightenment was a time of great philosophers who still were unable to dislodge the Rothschilds and others from their perch of importance, so I have to say that while it sounds good on paper in practice it has never come to pass.

Something as organic as the free market is proposed to be would have happened already. It has not happened because man is made unequal and those who are smarter don't want that to change.



I agree we need to adjust. The question is how. In the case of Chinese competition, should we raise tariffs and make US consumers pay even more? How would that help US citizens? I see no evidence that would increase jobs here.

There are many ways to adjust it including incentives here to hire Americans, such as a tax holiday.

[Captain Obvious]

No, it is not nearly the same thing. Walmart is not a manufacturer. It is a retailer.



No. They will raise the price of goods in their stores.



They are successful because they can provide cheap goods. Many corporations provide goods we value. Walmart is able to provide cheap goods, at cheap prices. This ensures customers on tight budgets will shop there today and again when their cheap good falls apart.

It is not in corporate best interest to supply lasting products that we need, hence why only luxury items and non-essentials are well made.



We are in a great recession because companies have outsourced thus destroying the capacity of blue collar America to consume more than essentials and because we purposefully created a housing bubble which we could not sustain indefinitely and everything hit like an economic perfect storm, allowing consolidation of particular industries and government to become "owner/caretaker". One would almost think it happened on purpose.



It hurts those of us who are not affected by outsourcing, and we would want to compete with the Chinese because they are our enemy and want to compete with us.

China wants to win at this game.



The Scottish Enlightenment was a time of great philosophers who still were unable to dislodge the Rothschilds and others from their perch of importance, so I have to say that while it sounds good on paper in practice it has never come to pass.

Something as organic as the free market is proposed to be would have happened already. It has not happened because man is made unequal and those who are smarter don't want that to change.



There are many ways to adjust it including incentives here to hire Americans, such as a tax holiday.

I contend that people who shop at Walmart can't afford it because they're getting less value with cheap junk, but that's my theory.

Kinda like how people waste more money by using credit cards, payday loans, etc. Same concept, corporatist establishment preying on the poor.

We're not in a recession, btw.

Welcome, I have a hunch you're a companion of Alyosha

[TrixWitch]

I contend that people who shop at Walmart can't afford it because they're getting less value with cheap junk, but that's my theory.

Kinda like how people waste more money by using credit cards, payday loans, etc. Same concept, corporatist establishment preying on the poor.

We're not in a recession, btw.

Welcome, I have a hunch you're a companion of @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)


Relative, actually. Nice to meet you.

[Mac-7]

If we had tariff protection many products would cost more because American workers need to charge more for their labor than Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and other low income nations.

But American workers could get better jobs and our balance of payment deficit would improve.

[Bob]

WalMart does more than that: because of its massive economies of scale it strong arms suppliers and forces them to operate on much smaller profit margins.

When I owned my machine shop, I came up with a shop rate. I won't bore you with the details, but it was a bit more than double the wage of my top paid foreman.

Seems like i would kill it eh? My rent at the time was about 10 cents per foot. I don't remember the utilities but I used a lot of electric current to run my various machines. The most powerful used a 220 v 10 hp motor. My smallest machine had at least 1 hp and was 220 v.

But as the owner, I had management tasks. I had to prospect for work. I had to pick up and deliver product or materials. I was close to a net overhead for the shop. I did work on the machines when they were free. I tried to hire a man for every machine.

Think there was no resistance?

I did work for a large company that made pumps that pumped oil down the pipelines. One thing I recall was wear rings. When the pumps run, things wear out. They don't want to replace the whole joint or pumping area so they design them with wear rings. They required a special steel. I forget, maybe they provided it to my business. Some customers insisted on supplying the metal.

Anyway, I was told to forget a bid. Just do the job. Then I was told, don't worry about your price because if you charge us over what we know it should cost, we won't do business with you. Naturally they never showed me their estimated times. Talk about holding down prices.

As time passed, and the shop put out superior work, they did allow me to see how long they estimated. But even then, think twice before going over it.

[Peter1469]

i was sticking to the topic.

Its you and Chris who are off topic attacking me.

you throw the rules at me but you are the one breaking the rules not me. You missed my point.

I didn't say you violated a rule. I said something more like pot calling kettle black:

You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way .

:shocked:

[Mac-7]

You missed my point.

I didn't say you violated a rule. I said something more like pot calling kettle black:

You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way .

:shocked:

I know you were not accusing me of breaking any rules - this time.

As for kettles and pots on this thread you are the kettle and Chris is the pot.

[Peter1469]

I know you were not accusing me of breaking any rules - this time.

As for kettles and pots on this thread you are the kettle and Chris is the pot.

I would disagree with that. I assume Chris would as well.

[Mac-7]

I would disagree with that. I assume Chris would as well.

And you and Chris would be wrong as usual.

You and your partner were not discussing the topic you were attacking me.

[Peter1469]

And you and Chris would be wrong as usual.

You and your partner were not discussing the topic you were attacking me.

Thanks for the laugh. :smiley:

[Mac-7]

You are just what I told Codename section you were.

A bitter lib who can't lay off the personal attacks.

[Captain Obvious]

You are just what I told Codename section you were.

A bitter lib who can't lay off the personal attacks.

The libs crawl in, the libs crawl out...

[nathanbforrest45]

I can't take this anymore. Fools who think wealth comes from people sitting on their rear ends. Who think wealth comes from taxing the living shit out of producers. Fools who are so driven by envy and hatred of anyone who is even 1 percent better than they are. I can't watch the upcoming collapse of this country. How long before we are another Greece, reneging on our debts and becoming just another third world piss pot?

[TrixWitch]

I can't take this anymore. Fools who think wealth comes from people sitting on their rear ends. Who think wealth comes from taxing the living $#@! out of producers. Fools who are so driven by envy and hatred of anyone who is even 1 percent better than they are. I can't watch the upcoming collapse of this country. How long before we are another Greece, reneging on our debts and becoming just another third world piss pot?

Without consumers the producers would create costly stockpile and have zero wealth and high debt. Even those on assistance contribute under our current system. Without government aid they would not buy the goods or services the producers produce.

Those who are truly wealthy, not just rich, understand the role that those on government assistance play in the larger economic picture which is why you never hear the Mitt Romneys speak of cutting off aid even as they disparage it in secret meetings. Romney stated repeatedly that he had no intentions of trying to cut entitlements and he meant it.

[Bob]

Without consumers the producers would create costly stockpile and have zero wealth and high debt. Even those on assistance contribute under our current system. Without government aid they would not buy the goods or services the producers produce.

Those who are truly wealthy, not just rich, understand the role that those on government assistance play in the larger economic picture which is why you never hear the Mitt Romneys speak of cutting off aid even as they disparage it in secret meetings. Romney stated repeatedly that he had no intentions of trying to cut entitlements and he meant it.

I look at it this way. A crowd gathers at the shore of a lake, river or ocean. Some head into the water, determined to catch fish. Those on the beach pray they will get free fish. Those who fish the most, have a store of fish. To sell, give away or use. But those on the beach feel entitled to fish because they stood watching.

Most of those who hate wealth refuse to speak ill of Oprah Winfrey who is worth billions of dollars.

I have yet to find a single Democrat willing to disparage her fast rise to wealth.

[Peter1469]

You are just what I told Codename section you were.

A bitter lib who can't lay off the personal attacks.

I guess that I am a classical liberal. But I am the furthest thing from bitter that there is.

As far as personal attacks go- I am surprised your skin is so thin, since you are a constant personal attack. :smiley:

[Mac-7]

As far as personal attacks go- I am surprised your skin is so thin, since you are a constant personal attack. :smiley:


I was not personally attacking anyone till you and Chris started in on me.

Management demanded that I stick to the issues but apparently that does not apply to the libs.

[Ransom]

I guess that I am a classical liberal. But I am the furthest thing from bitter that there is.

As far as personal attacks go- I am surprised your skin is so thin, since you are a constant personal attack. :smiley:

Classical liberals aren't isolationists so.....you ain't liberal nor classic. Tighten up.

[nathanbforrest45]

The idea that we need those on public assistance to "contribute" to the economy is absurd. Where does the money for those on assistance come from? Is there a public assistance money farm in Idaho or something? No, the money for public assistance comes from the producers in the form of taxes. Along with the decrease in available funds for those being taxed a portion of that money is bled off to pay "administrative" cost for the drones who collect their income from the stolen wealth from those who actually created it.

Public assistance decreases wealth. As far as the truly wealthy not arguing about public assistance that stems from the concept of Nobelese Oblige not from the idea that by giving away their wealth will somehow bring them more wealth.

[Chris]

Classical liberals aren't isolationists so.....you ain't liberal nor classic. Tighten up.


It gets kind of farcical when you keep criticizing noninterventionists for being isolationists. After a while it makes you look somewhat retarded.

[Chris]

No, it is not nearly the same thing. Walmart is not a manufacturer. It is a retailer.



No. They will raise the price of goods in their stores.



They are successful because they can provide cheap goods. Many corporations provide goods we value. Walmart is able to provide cheap goods, at cheap prices. This ensures customers on tight budgets will shop there today and again when their cheap good falls apart.

It is not in corporate best interest to supply lasting products that we need, hence why only luxury items and non-essentials are well made.



We are in a great recession because companies have outsourced thus destroying the capacity of blue collar America to consume more than essentials and because we purposefully created a housing bubble which we could not sustain indefinitely and everything hit like an economic perfect storm, allowing consolidation of particular industries and government to become "owner/caretaker". One would almost think it happened on purpose.



It hurts those of us who are not affected by outsourcing, and we would want to compete with the Chinese because they are our enemy and want to compete with us.

China wants to win at this game.



The Scottish Enlightenment was a time of great philosophers who still were unable to dislodge the Rothschilds and others from their perch of importance, so I have to say that while it sounds good on paper in practice it has never come to pass.

Something as organic as the free market is proposed to be would have happened already. It has not happened because man is made unequal and those who are smarter don't want that to change.



There are many ways to adjust it including incentives here to hire Americans, such as a tax holiday.



I know what Walmart is. GMC moving to China and Walmart purchasing Chinese products is the same thing we're discussing. That one is a manufacturer and another a retailer is a distinction without merit here.


They are successful because they can provide cheap goods. Many corporations provide goods we value. Walmart is able to provide cheap goods, at cheap prices. This ensures customers on tight budgets will shop there today and again when their cheap good falls apart.

Apparently many people value cheap goods for if they did not they wouldn't purchase them.


We are in a great recession because companies have outsourced...

That is not what cause the Great Recession. The collapse had to do with banking.


It hurts those of us who are not affected by outsourcing, and we would want to compete with the Chinese because they are our enemy and want to compete with us.

US consumers purchase those goods because they value them. So how does China selling cheaply hurt us again?


I have to say that while it sounds good on paper in practice it has never come to pass.

Adam Smith wasn't theorizing in the sense of say Marx envisioning the collapse of capitalism or Keynes inventing theories about the multiplier effect, Smith was describing what he saw in the world around him and constructing an argument that the old mercantilist protectionist ways led to poverty and free trade led to prosperity. The theories here are your protectionist theories given that history demonstrates their failure.


Something as organic as the free market is proposed to be would have happened already. It has not happened because man is made unequal and those who are smarter don't want that to change.

The free market is that much of the market that exists outside what elites in government who think they're smart with their anointed and fatal visions think they can manage, you know, by trying to control prices and production and printing fiat money and levying quotas and tariffs.


There are many ways to adjust it including incentives here to hire Americans, such as a tax holiday.

Here we agree for reducing taxes is reducing government regulation. But this would be negated by applying tariffs to Chinese goods since tariffs are just another form of taxation.

[Chris]

If we had tariff protection many products would cost more because American workers need to charge more for their labor than Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and other low income nations.

But American workers could get better jobs and our balance of payment deficit would improve.


It would cost more simply because tariffs are paid by US consumers.

It would cost more because US manufacturers would see the distortion in prices as a signal to raise their prices.

[Peter1469]

I was not personally attacking anyone till you and Chris started in on me.

Management demanded that I stick to the issues but apparently that does not apply to the libs.

Part of your problem. If someone is left of David Duke, they are a lib.

That is b.s. in the real world.

Think thick skin and get along with more people. Don't be a girl.

[Peter1469]

Classical liberals aren't isolationists so.....you ain't liberal nor classic. Tighten up.

Incorrect.

1. I am a classical liberal
2. I am not an isolationist
3. You are a lair

And to correct your ignorance,
you ain't liberal nor classic doesn't make any sense.

4. So I guess you are also dumb.

[Safety]

Incorrect.

1. I am a classical liberal
2. I am not an isolationist
3. You are a lair

And to correct your ignorance, doesn't make any sense.

4. So I guess you are also dumb.

http://geekspodcast.com/geekpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/spider_dick_punch.jpeg

[Mac-7]

Part of your problem. If someone is left of David Duke, they are a lib.

That is b.s. in the real world.

Think thick skin and get along with more people. Don't be a girl.

You can label yourself anything you want.

but I will continue to call a space a spade as I see it

[Mac-7]

It would cost more simply because tariffs are paid by US consumers.

It would cost more because US manufacturers would see the distortion in prices as a signal to raise their prices.

Your way is destroying the middle class, which is worth more than cheap cell phones from
China

[Peter1469]

You can label yourself anything you want.

but I will continue to call a space a spade as I see it

You are a clown.

[Mac-7]

You are a clown.

You are still tap dancing away from the fact that I expressed and opinion on the topic that you and Chris did not like and you and he responded by discussing (attacking , insulting) me instead of the topic

[PolWatch]

You can label yourself anything you want.

but I will continue to call a space a spade as I see it

see? that is the problem...you need glasses....a space is not a spade... Correct identification of an issue is the first step to intelligent conversation.

[Dr. Who]

You are a clown.
No name calling.

[Peter1469]

You are still tap dancing away from the fact that I expressed and opinion on the topic that you and Chris did not like and you and he responded by discussing (attacking , insulting) me instead of the topic

I didn't insult you. I provided an accurate description of you. I could care less that you feel bad.

[Mac-7]

see? that is the problem...you need glasses....a space is not a spade... Correct identification of an issue is the first step to intelligent conversation.

Im typing on my cell phone and the letters are small.

but if that is the worst your crowd can say about me I guess I'm doing ok.

[Mac-7]

I didn't insult you. I provided an accurate description of you. I could care less that you feel bad.

I was not the topic till you and Chris made me the topic

[Peter1469]

I was not the topic till you and Chris made me the topic

Think before you post. It might help.

[Chris]

You are still tap dancing away from the fact that I expressed and opinion on the topic that you and Chris did not like and you and he responded by discussing (attacking , insulting) me instead of the topic

Completely false, mac.

You made the false claim "In the late 70's the shift to a world economy had already started" here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class/page3?p=942622#post942622

I criticised that with historical fact with prediction of an emotional reaction on your poart, "Hate to break it to you, mac, but the economy has always been global. Why protectionists like you think the US can isolate herself from trade is hard to imagine beyond some emotional patriotism I'm sure you'll spout," here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=942657&viewfull=1#post942657

You didn't disappoint with the following emotionally made up lie: "You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=942812&viewfull=1#post942812

I suggested "Predictable emotional reaction. Here, mac, shake it off...," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=942921&viewfull=1#post942921

Then you started you're whining: "I was not personally attacking anyone till you and Chris started in on me," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=943210&viewfull=1#post943210

It was you who attacked with your lie. I didn't attack you but criticized what you said.


That pattern repeats.

You claim "If we had tariff protection many products would cost more because American workers need to charge more for their labor than Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and other low income nations," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class/page5?p=942947#post942947

I counter that with fact: "It would cost more simply because tariffs are paid by US consumers. It would cost more because US manufacturers would see the distortion in prices as a signal to raise their prices," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=943329&viewfull=1#post943329

And, predictably, you respond with another emotional lie: "Your way is destroying the middle class, which is worth more than cheap cell phones from China," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=943345&viewfull=1#post943345


Your rhetorical behavior here, mac, is very predictable: Counters to your claims are met with emotional lies. That's a comment on your posting, max, not you as a person, whom I don't know and would prefer not knowing.

[Chris]

see? that is the problem...you need glasses....a space is not a spade... Correct identification of an issue is the first step to intelligent conversation.


Im typing on my cell phone and the letters are small.

but if that is the worst your crowd can say about me I guess I'm doing ok.



And the pattern repeats. Comment on your post results in emotional lie.

[Chris]

A better pattern to follow, mac, would be TrixWitch. Her and I disagree but we don't become disagreeable. The discussion is challenging and informative.

[Mac-7]

Think before you post. It might help.

You agree with you and Chris and we can all be friends

[Mac-7]

And the pattern repeats. Comment on your post results in emotional lie.

She didn't directly comment on my opinion

she pointed out a typing error

but since pol watch is in you and peters crowd it was just her way of piling on

[Mac-7]

Completely false, mac.

You made the false claim "In the late 70's the shift to a world economy had already started" here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class/page3?p=942622#post942622

I criticised that with historical fact with prediction of an emotional reaction on your poart, "Hate to break it to you, mac, but the economy has always been global. Why protectionists like you think the US can isolate herself from trade is hard to imagine beyond some emotional patriotism I'm sure you'll spout," here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=942657&viewfull=1#post942657

You didn't disappoint with the following emotionally made up lie: "You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=942812&viewfull=1#post942812

I suggested "Predictable emotional reaction. Here, mac, shake it off...," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=942921&viewfull=1#post942921

Then you started you're whining: "I was not personally attacking anyone till you and Chris started in on me," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=943210&viewfull=1#post943210

It was you who attacked with your lie. I didn't attack you but criticized what you said.


That pattern repeats.

You claim "If we had tariff protection many products would cost more because American workers need to charge more for their labor than Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and other low income nations," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class/page5?p=942947#post942947

I counter that with fact: "It would cost more simply because tariffs are paid by US consumers. It would cost more because US manufacturers would see the distortion in prices as a signal to raise their prices," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=943329&viewfull=1#post943329

And, predictably, you respond with another emotional lie: "Your way is destroying the middle class, which is worth more than cheap cell phones from China," here http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/38566-Reagan-Helped-Destroy-The-Middle-Class?p=943345&viewfull=1#post943345


Your rhetorical behavior here, mac, is very predictable: Counters to your claims are met with emotional lies. That's a comment on your posting, max, not you as a person, whom I don't know and would prefer not knowing.

your excuses do not pass the smell test

what happened is that you and Peter took personal offense at an opinion I offered and began commenting about me instead of the topic

[Chris]

She didn't directly comment on my opinion

she pointed out a typing error

but since pol watch is in you and peters crowd it was just her way of piling on

First, I said "Comment on your post".

Second, you repeat your pattern again, comment on your post results in emotional lie. There's no crowd, there's no piling on. Why you're feeling so pitifully picked on is not my concern.

[PolWatch]

She didn't directly comment on my opinion

she pointed out a typing error

but since pol watch is in you and peters crowd it was just her way of piling on

<handling out cheese>

[Chris]

your excuses do not pass the smell test

what happened is that you and Peter took personal offense at an opinion I offered and began commenting about me instead of the topic



You repeat your pattern again, comment on your post results in emotional lie. No one took offense, well, except you. I have not commented on you but your posting pattern. Please stop your incessant lying.

[Mac-7]

<handling out cheese>

"Handling out cheese?"

Your typing is no better than mine.

[PolWatch]

made your day...didn't it? more cheese?

[Mac-7]

You repeat your pattern again, comment on your post results in emotional lie. No one took offense, well, except you. I have not commented on you but your posting pattern. Please stop your incessant lying.

youre offended whenever someone disagrees with your goofy ideas

[Mac-7]

made your day...didn't it? more cheese?

Any game libs can think up conservatives can learn to play

[Chris]

youre offended whenever someone disagrees with your goofy ideas


And you lie again. I'm not offended. I await your disagreement. The whining is tiresome.

[Chris]

Any game libs can think up conservatives can learn to play



So you admit you're just playing games.

[Mac-7]

And you lie again. I'm not offended. I await your disagreement. The whining is tiresome.

I have you my opinion and as usual you descended into personal remarks instead of the topic

[Chris]

I have you my opinion and as usual you descended into personal remarks instead of the topic

Your posted opinion was a lie about me, speaking of descending personal remarks. So here you lie again. Listen, keep up the lies, it's your damned reputation.

[Mac-7]

Your posted opinion was a lie about me, speaking of descending personal remarks. So here you lie again. Listen, keep up the lies, it's your $#@!ed reputation.

I disagree with all of that but no matter how many times we post here neither of is is going to change our mind.

if you want the last word you can have it.

[silvereyes]

It gets kind of farcical when you keep criticizing noninterventionists for being isolationists. After a while it makes you look somewhat retarded.
Ok....how do pronounce that fifth word?:)

[silvereyes]

You are a clown.

Pete, that nice nor is it fair. I think you, as a mod, should know better than this.











Thats an insult to clowns. Poor clowns. :(

[silvereyes]

Relative, actually. Nice to meet you.

She has relatives? And here i thought they broke the mold after she was hatched. LOL.
smooches aly!

[silvereyes]

You missed my point.

I didn't say you violated a rule. I said something more like pot calling kettle black:

You sound pretty hateful towards those of who don't see the world your way .

:shocked:
You forgot rude and condescending and holier than thou.
Youre welcome. :)

[Chris]

Ok....how do pronounce that fifth word?:)

Close to British arse.

[silvereyes]

see? that is the problem...you need glasses....a space is not a spade... Correct identification of an issue is the first step to intelligent conversation.
OMFG! You witch! You absolute witch! I just spewed orange crush everywhere!
*stomps off to get towel and clean shirt*

[silvereyes]

She didn't directly comment on my opinion

she pointed out a typing error

but since pol watch is in you and peters crowd it was just her way of piling on

Now time the fuck out bucko. Pol is extremely fair and that was uncalled for.

[silvereyes]

youre offended whenever someone disagrees with your goofy ideas

Yah we need to keep reminding ourselves that, of course, only your ideas are valid.

[Mac-7]

Now time the $#@! out bucko. Pol is extremely fair and that was uncalled for.

you are entitled to your opinion about your lib buddy and I have mine

[silvereyes]

Any game libs can think up conservatives can learn to play
Except you either ignore the rules or change them midstream to suit you.

[TrixWitch]

Children, it would be nice if you could attempt to discuss the political issues that are directly pertinent to the rest of us. I don't care about the personal issues of anyone in this thread and it would be nice if they were kept to yourself.

[silvereyes]

Close to British arse.

But what if i dont want to get close to a british arse? Dun dun dun. Its a connundrem now.

[silvereyes]

you are entitled to your opinion about your lib buddy and I have mine

Damn thats twice now that i forgot only your opinion matters.
My bad.

[Chris]

But what if i dont want to get close to a british arse? Dun dun dun. Its a connundrem now.

http://i.snag.gy/4kqWc.jpg

[TrixWitch]

At what point does moderation kick in on this forum and stop people from acting like they are in grade school? This was an interesting topic at one point. Why should anyone bother returning to it now after this foolishness?

[Chris]

Children, it would be nice if you could attempt to discuss the political issues that are directly pertinent to the rest of us. I don't care about the personal issues of anyone in this thread and it would be nice if they were kept to yourself.

http://i.snag.gy/hL4Lo.jpg

[texan]

President Ronald Reagan remains a venerated figure (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165902/americans-rate-jfk-top-modern-president.aspx) in American politics, even as folks on the left have been taking (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/reagans-toll-middle-class) a more critical look (http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/) at his economic legacy in recent years.So perhaps it's not a surprise that Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders would not think well of the Gipper. But when Sanders took to the Senate floor Thursday evening to offer a broad vision for how to do something to help the declining middle class, he offered a stunning chart that showed just how poorly most Americans have fared during economic recoveries since the advent of Reaganomics.
The chart starts by showing that in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 percent of the country captured most of the growth in income during rebounds from tough times. But then came the Reagan era, and what George H. W. Bush once dubbed "voodoo economics." After Reagan implemented his policies, the top 10 percent grabbed nearly 80 percent of the growth in incomes coming out of the oil crises of the late '70s.

"Whoa! What happens in 1982?" Sanders said, noting the dramatic reversal in his diagram. "Well, Ronald Reagan is president, and the good news is we are into trickle-down economics."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/ronald-reagan-middle-class_n_6578130.html


Duh my name is C,ommon, duh duh drool on yourself.......Post Whore

[silvereyes]

Duh my name is C,ommon, duh duh drool on yourself.......Post Whore

Like this trix?

[Peter1469]

Pete, that nice nor is it fair. I think you, as a mod, should know better than this.











Thats an insult to clowns. Poor clowns. :(

:wink:

[Peter1469]

This thread is at 115 posts. This bunch can't be serious past 10 or 20.

[Reason10]

President Ronald Reagan remains a venerated figure (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165902/americans-rate-jfk-top-modern-president.aspx) in American politics, even as folks on the left have been taking (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/reagans-toll-middle-class) a more critical look (http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/) at his economic legacy in recent years.So perhaps it's not a surprise that Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders would not think well of the Gipper. But when Sanders took to the Senate floor Thursday evening to offer a broad vision for how to do something to help the declining middle class, he offered a stunning chart that showed just how poorly most Americans have fared during economic recoveries since the advent of Reaganomics.
The chart starts by showing that in the decades after World War II, the bottom 90 percent of the country captured most of the growth in income during rebounds from tough times. But then came the Reagan era, and what George H. W. Bush once dubbed "voodoo economics." After Reagan implemented his policies, the top 10 percent grabbed nearly 80 percent of the growth in incomes coming out of the oil crises of the late '70s.

"Whoa! What happens in 1982?" Sanders said, noting the dramatic reversal in his diagram. "Well, Ronald Reagan is president, and the good news is we are into trickle-down economics."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/ronald-reagan-middle-class_n_6578130.html

Bernie Sanders and the HUFFINGONACRACKPIPE POST.

And you wonder why everyone thinks liberals are fucking idiots.

REAGAN WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA. HE CAUSED THE POOR TO BECOME MIDDLE CLASS AND THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS TO GET RICH.

End of argument.
http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ronald_reagan.jpg

[Mac-7]

OMFG! You witch! You absolute witch! I just spewed orange crush everywhere!
*stomps off to get towel and clean shirt*

How many times are libs gonna trade that tired old joke with each other?

The next time you spit on your computer I hope it has a short circuit.

[zelmo1234]

There is no debate here. There is no trickle down since 1982 Reagans voodoo economics is what you see today. Income inequality so wide that even economists worry about it.

Reagan gave huge tax cuts to the richest of scumbags and made the entire tax cut up by a HUGE increase in payroll deductions for everyone else.

But it was nothing compared to the cuts that Clinton gave them in 1996?

And I am still waiting for you to tell me why me making a lot of money is costing you money? We have more millionaires in this country than any other time in history, yet the poor remain about that 15% mark?

And the middle class is shrinking? HMMMMM!

So lets look at some of the outsourcing and the causes of that? And just who were the free traders? That is part of it. and then lets look at our educational system that tries to tell people the can succeed just by participating?

So I still need to understand how taking money from the rich in taxes is going to help the poor?

[zelmo1234]

Pete I believe you have debunked it on your word, but I will have to disagree on income equality being over stated. If anything its understated, the evidence is quite clear on that

Why does income inequality matter are all? Why is the amount that I make keeping anyone else from making a living?

[PolWatch]

oh goody, another one who thinks that screaming (oversize font) at people wins the discussion....

[Chris]

Why does income inequality matter are all? Why is the amount that I make keeping anyone else from making a living?

Depends on whether you see the economy as a fixed pie or not. Of course it's not.

[texan]

BLAH BLAH BLAH you are a racist if you disagree!

[Reason10]

oh goody, another one who thinks that screaming (oversize font) at people wins the discussion....
Sometimes, idiots need large print to get the truth through their thick skulls.

[PolWatch]

I see the children are playing on the family computer again....