Some are more equal than others...

[ginwilly]

Whose fault is it?

The people who not only beg to be public servants but pay quite handsomely to do so. Please vote for me to represent your best interests, then blame others when I only represent mine.

Why not hold those accountable who plead to be our servants yet sell us to the highest bidder? The corporate entity who does the bribing are not people right? how can they be held accountable?

Seriously though, I expect a corporation to act in it's best interest, I expect the person who campaigned to represent me to actually represent my best interest.

Your blame is misplaced. Don't be one of the occupiers who had no clue. Be one of the few that got it.

 

[UncleBuck]

I expect the person who campaigned to represent me to actually represent my best interest.

then maybe try voting for the person who will represent your bests interests.

actually, considering that you favor allowing EMTs to watch gays die in the name of "religious freedom", rend pawl might actually be your best choice.

nevermind then, carry on voting for thos ewho will best represent your bigotry and hatred.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Richard Wolff explains modern income inequality in America

 

[NLXSK1]

Richard Wolff explains modern income inequality in America

I like how you ask who is responsible for corruption and when the answer is soundly the *politicians* you simply ignore it and move on to another incorrect position.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I like how you ask who is responsible for corruption and when the answer is soundly the *politicians* you simply ignore it and move on to another incorrect position.

Politicians and corporations are responsible

You see no fault with unlimited spending in public elections and compare it to free speech (even though over 80% of people disagree and over 96% support campaign finance reform). You dismiss the value of political polls when they disagree with your narrative. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (2 of whom rank in the top 5 of most conservative judges of all time and Scalia earning an embarrassing 0.00 on the Segal-Cover score) said so, so you say that makes it right... Except when they vote on things you personally disagree with, then to you it's just a liberal bias/a liberal conspiracy/a liberal cover up/et al.. The story is always the same with conservatives.

What exactly are you dismissing in Wolff's presentation? The information he presents is exactly the same thing I've been talking about in this thread, he even cites Saez & Piketty in the first 2 minutes and gives you a source to check the information yourself.

The mathematical conclusion being:

1979-2012 % Growth

Lowest 20% -12.1%
20-40% -0.1%
40-60% +8.4%
60-80% +20.3%
Top 20% +48.8%
Top 5% +103.2%
Top 1% +184.9%
Top 0.1% +383.8%
Top 0.01% +685.1%

Which means that when you average the data, 60% of Americans (~200 million people) suffered an economic loss between 1979-2012, Wolff points out that this took place simultaneously as women entered the workforce by the millions giving most households 2 incomes making the numbers even worse

This is the effect of an economic policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, compounded by exponential financial influence in political elections

 

[ChesusRice]

Politicians and corporations are responsible

You see no fault with unlimited spending in public elections and compare it to free speech (even though over 80% of people disagree and over 96% support campaign finance reform). You dismiss the value of political polls when they disagree with your narrative. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (2 of whom rank in the top 5 of most conservative judges of all time and Scalia earning an embarrassing 0.00 on the Segal-Cover score) said so, so you say that makes it right... Except when they vote on things you personally disagree with, then to you it's just a liberal bias/a liberal conspiracy/a liberal cover up/et al.. The story is always the same with conservatives.

What exactly are you dismissing in Wolff's presentation? The information he presents is exactly the same thing I've been talking about in this thread, he even cites Saez & Piketty in the first 2 minutes and gives you a source to check the information yourself.

The mathematical conclusion being:

1979-2012 % Growth

Lowest 20% -12.1%
20-40% -0.1%
40-60% +8.4%
60-80% +20.3%
Top 20% +48.8%
Top 5% +103.2%
Top 1% +184.9%
Top 0.1% +383.8%
Top 0.01% +685.1%

Which means that when you average the data, 60% of Americans (~200 million people) suffered an economic loss between 1979-2012, Wolff points out that this took place simultaneously as women entered the workforce by the millions giving most households 2 incomes making the numbers even worse

This is the effect of an economic policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, compounded by exponential financial influence in political elections

You poor deluded man.
You just dont understand how trickle down works. You need to give it time 30 years isnt a long enough time span

 

[Padawanbater2]

You poor deluded man.
You just dont understand how trickle down works. You need to give it time 30 years isnt a long enough time span

I can't comprehend how anyone would buy that load of bullshit when it was introduced, let alone 30 years later having witnessed the destruction with their own two eyes..

Conservativism... not even once.

 

[ChesusRice]

I can't comprehend how anyone would buy that load of bullshit when it was introduced, let alone 30 years later having witnessed the destruction with their own two eyes..

Conservativism... not even once.

Its not a new concept.
Back in the late 1800s when America was great and negroes knew their place they called it the "horse and sparrow" theory
See the Horse is the wealthy and Industry.
You feed the horse and we the sparrows get to feed off of whatever the horse doesnt digest on the other end
Makes sense doesnt it?

 

[NLXSK1]

Who a

Politicians and corporations are responsible

You see no fault with unlimited spending in public elections and compare it to free speech (even though over 80% of people disagree and over 96% support campaign finance reform). You dismiss the value of political polls when they disagree with your narrative. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (2 of whom rank in the top 5 of most conservative judges of all time and Scalia earning an embarrassing 0.00 on the Segal-Cover score) said so, so you say that makes it right... Except when they vote on things you personally disagree with, then to you it's just a liberal bias/a liberal conspiracy/a liberal cover up/et al.. The story is always the same with conservatives.

What exactly are you dismissing in Wolff's presentation? The information he presents is exactly the same thing I've been talking about in this thread, he even cites Saez & Piketty in the first 2 minutes and gives you a source to check the information yourself.

The mathematical conclusion being:

1979-2012 % Growth

Lowest 20% -12.1%
20-40% -0.1%
40-60% +8.4%
60-80% +20.3%
Top 20% +48.8%
Top 5% +103.2%
Top 1% +184.9%
Top 0.1% +383.8%
Top 0.01% +685.1%

Which means that when you average the data, 60% of Americans (~200 million people) suffered an economic loss between 1979-2012, Wolff points out that this took place simultaneously as women entered the workforce by the millions giving most households 2 incomes making the numbers even worse

This is the effect of an economic policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, compounded by exponential financial influence in political elections

Who are you arguing with? It certainly isnt me.

I guess that money in politics = unfair wealth distribution = take money out of politics and re-distribute it into your pocket...

It is not the purpose of government to control the welfare streams of income for groups of people.

It is not the purpose of government to determine who can donate to political campaigns, when and under what circumstances. It is like asking the fox to watch the hen house.

You do not seem to understand that the very government you look to as the fix for the situation is the monster that created the problem. You dont go to a meth addict and demand that he legislate himself out of his meth supply... If you think the politicians will take money out of their OWN pockets you are delusional. You still believe their promises because SCIENCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !!

You still do not understand that how much money your neighbor has is not relative to your situation except that the more he has the better it likely is for you if you are a producer in society. You have yet to understand the concept that making the rich guy poorer will somehow make you more wealthy rather than the opposite. I dont know why you are bothering with any further college, you are fully indoctrinated. Go talk to the dean and he will probably give you an honorary masters. Oh wait, they take every penny they can steal from you before they do that... LOL!!!

Kids these days....

 

[NLXSK1]

Some are willing to get out of bed in the morning and work for a living.

Life is so unfair....

How do you compete with something like that??

 

[ChesusRice]

Who a


Who are you arguing with? It certainly isnt me.
Because you are a total idiot

I guess that money in politics = unfair wealth distribution = take money out of politics and re-distribute it into your pocket...
Money in politics = unfair influence

It is not the purpose of government to control the welfare streams of income for groups of people.
It is when the welfare streams are detrimental to the welfare of the population of the USA

It is not the purpose of government to determine who can donate to political campaigns, when and under what circumstances. It is like asking the fox to watch the hen house.
Absolutly. We should allow foreign goverments and entitys to buy influence (fucking retard)

You do not seem to understand that the very government you look to as the fix for the situation is the monster that created the problem. You dont go to a meth addict and demand that he legislate himself out of his meth supply... If you think the politicians will take money out of their OWN pockets you are delusional. You still believe their promises because SCIENCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !!
The goverment created health care crisis , poverty and illiteracy?

You still do not understand that how much money your neighbor has is not relative to your situation except that the more he has the better it likely is for you if you are a producer in society. You have yet to understand the concept that making the rich guy poorer will somehow make you more wealthy rather than the opposite. I dont know why you are bothering with any further college, you are fully indoctrinated. Go talk to the dean and he will probably give you an honorary masters. Oh wait, they take every penny they can steal from you before they do that... LOL!!!

Kids these days....

Goddamn
Predictable stupidity is predictable coming from you

 

[ChesusRice]

Some are willing to get out of bed in the morning and work for a living.

Life is so unfair....

How do you compete with something like that??

Yes everyone who is not successful in life is lazy

Fucking stupid is as NLXSK1 says

 

[UncleBuck]

Who a


Who are you arguing with? It certainly isnt me.

I guess that money in politics = unfair wealth distribution = take money out of politics and re-distribute it into your pocket...

It is not the purpose of government to control the welfare streams of income for groups of people.

It is not the purpose of government to determine who can donate to political campaigns, when and under what circumstances. It is like asking the fox to watch the hen house.

You do not seem to understand that the very government you look to as the fix for the situation is the monster that created the problem. You dont go to a meth addict and demand that he legislate himself out of his meth supply... If you think the politicians will take money out of their OWN pockets you are delusional. You still believe their promises because SCIENCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !!

You still do not understand that how much money your neighbor has is not relative to your situation except that the more he has the better it likely is for you if you are a producer in society. You have yet to understand the concept that making the rich guy poorer will somehow make you more wealthy rather than the opposite. I dont know why you are bothering with any further college, you are fully indoctrinated. Go talk to the dean and he will probably give you an honorary masters. Oh wait, they take every penny they can steal from you before they do that... LOL!!!

Kids these days....

lol, complete meltdown.

 

[UncleBuck]

Some are willing to get out of bed in the morning and work for a living.

Life is so unfair....

How do you compete with something like that??

didn't you have to get a loan from the bank just to cover your pop tarts and hot pockets?

 

[UncleBuck]

You dont go to a meth addict and demand that he legislate himself out of his meth supply...

kinda funny yo would use that example, being from AJ and all.

 

[NLXSK1]

Yes everyone who is not successful in life is lazy

Fucking stupid is as NLXSK1 says

Probably not but I am willing to bet most lazy people are not successful. When do we start legislating that?

 

[Red1966]

Politicians and corporations are responsible

You see no fault with unlimited spending in public elections and compare it to free speech (even though over 80% of people disagree and over 96% support campaign finance reform). You dismiss the value of political polls when they disagree with your narrative. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (2 of whom rank in the top 5 of most conservative judges of all time and Scalia earning an embarrassing 0.00 on the Segal-Cover score) said so, so you say that makes it right... Except when they vote on things you personally disagree with, then to you it's just a liberal bias/a liberal conspiracy/a liberal cover up/et al.. The story is always the same with conservatives.

What exactly are you dismissing in Wolff's presentation? The information he presents is exactly the same thing I've been talking about in this thread, he even cites Saez & Piketty in the first 2 minutes and gives you a source to check the information yourself.

The mathematical conclusion being:

1979-2012 % Growth

Lowest 20% -12.1%
20-40% -0.1%
40-60% +8.4%
60-80% +20.3%
Top 20% +48.8%
Top 5% +103.2%
Top 1% +184.9%
Top 0.1% +383.8%
Top 0.01% +685.1%

Which means that when you average the data, 60% of Americans (~200 million people) suffered an economic loss between 1979-2012, Wolff points out that this took place simultaneously as women entered the workforce by the millions giving most households 2 incomes making the numbers even worse

This is the effect of an economic policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, compounded by exponential financial influence in political elections

Your data clearly states only 40% had a loss, yet you claim it proves 60%. So, a lie. So women entering the workforce decreased the value of labor? That sounds a little misogynistic.

 

[ChesusRice]

Probably not but I am willing to bet most lazy people are not successful. When do we start legislating that?

How hard is it really to be filthy rich and have people do all your work for you?

 

[NLXSK1]

Goddamn
Predictable stupidity is predictable coming from you

Isnt the government responsible for the free public education system in this country?

Who is responsible for illiteracy? Are you gonna tell me it is racists? Are you gonna blame Buuuuuuush??? How old do you have to be to realize it is kind of important to learn how to read?

Is whatever wrong with you something you had at birth or is it some other kind of defect?

 

[Red1966]

I can't comprehend how anyone would buy that load of bullshit when it was introduced, let alone 30 years later having witnessed the destruction with their own two eyes..

Conservativism... not even once.

Yes, the economic boom of the 90's never happened.................lol..............