WSUwarrior
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,864
- Reaction score
- 493
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I think we need fewer poor people. I figure an upper-middle-class lifestyle is just fine. Perhaps I'm not ambitious enough.
Why wouldnt I want more people to be rich? I think we need MORE rich people, not fewer.
I can't think of a better reason to continue to post that way. But don't let me discourage you from posting in response to me. Another thing I can't think of … is someone more easily defeated in a debate. Not because you disagree with me. I'm sure there are many valid ways to counter my arguments. You just do a really lousy job of it. Yer too busy slamming me as a "blind liberal" who "can't do any research." I "need to grow up." I won't say that I don't descend to that level of worthless comment. But I'm confident that I don't start it.
Tell me WHY Obama should be held responsible for the job losses in 2009. WHY should the money in government retirement accounts not be used to purchase Treasury bonds? WHY is Obama responsible for the big increase in the national debt when federal spending has been growing so slowly by historical standards?
View attachment 67184389
I think we need fewer poor people. I figure an upper-middle-class lifestyle is just fine. Perhaps I'm not ambitious enough.
That is not the trend, we have more wealth being concentrated into the hands of the top 1%, lower levels of wealth for the majority. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth when you say you do not like all these low wage jobs while you argue for a few to get much wealthier.More rich people means fewer poor people. That is why capitalism is so great...it creates opportunities for people who would otherwise have nothing.
Because there you go again, percentage change. do you understand the role denominator and numerator play in determining percentage change? Reagan's last budget was a trillion dollars and took GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion. Obama has taken GDP from 14.4 trillion to 17.2 trillion which one has the higher percentage increase?
You think Obama is a deficit hawk proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget?
You are indeed a legend in your own mind, thinking you won the debate when BLS, BEA, and Treasury make you look foolish
This is just so stupid, it is the "soup kitchens create depressions" argument. Cutting social services will not cause job creation. "dependence" is created by destroying good wage employment. If you want fewer poor, support job creation, not neoliberal/supply-side job destruction.With fewer poor people there is less need for liberal politicians to create dependence. Liberal politicians have a job for life giving people "things" and apparently that is ok with you
LOL Con....you love to try to spout BLS, BEA....but repeatedly you have been shown the BLS/BEA numbers that don't support your positions...and when you are shown this your response is always the same....shuffle off and hide.
This is just so stupid, it is the "soup kitchens create depressions" argument. Cutting social services will not cause job creation. "dependence" is created by destroying good wage employment. If you want fewer poor, support job creation, not neoliberal/supply-side job destruction.
This is just so stupid, it is the "soup kitchens create depressions" argument. Cutting social services will not cause job creation. "dependence" is created by destroying good wage employment. If you want fewer poor, support job creation, not neoliberal/supply-side job destruction.
That is not the trend, we have more wealth being concentrated into the hands of the top 1%, lower levels of wealth for the majority. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth when you say you do not like all these low wage jobs while you argue for a few to get much wealthier.
The more frequently a poster uses the words "liberal" or "leftist" in a given post, the greater the chance of said poster being completely full of ****.
Feel free to post those numbers because you have never done so. The one hiding is always you when confused by data and facts. I have posted the BLS charts which of course you ignored. I post Treasury data which you ignore, I post BEA.gov data which you ignore. The one that runs is you. Don't blame you because being in California anything that refutes your comments has to be false.
I just got through destroying this "small business" meme, and I know you read it, it was admitted that it is done to enrich the owner. And, instead of trying to defend this old, worn out, BS argument about "Dems create dependency" (from a former "states rights" Dem himself, no less!!!) you instead decide to restart a dead argument. I don't have the capital to hire, it was wiped out by the Bush Recession.Holding people accountable and people accepting personal responsibility will create jobs. How many people do you employ? Why don't you do something about it by creating a business that actually helps people
Why.....so you can run off and hide again? You have REPEATEDLY been shown the numbers but you choose to spin and shuffle rather than address the issue. Typical of your M.O.
Here's an easy to comprehend chart for you:
View attachment 67184390
If the goal was for the creation of larger numbers of higher paying WAGE employment........why do you insist on going in circles? I'm not arguing for greater concentrations of wealth in fewer hands, you are, by your own admission. Again, you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting yourself. You don't lament the large numbers of low wage jobs, you want it by arguing for wealthier owners.So why wouldnt you want more poor/middle class people to open businesses and become rich?
In a word, yes.And what exactly does that tell you? You think that TX leading the nation in job creation benefited from the Obama economy?
More recent account:
December 2007 there were 146 million working Americans and today that is 148 million
When Obama took office and passed his stimulus to create shovel ready jobs there were 142 million working Americans, today that is 148 million
In January 2001 the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is 18.2 trillion. Are those the result you want to tout?
In a word, yes.
Texas benefiting from improving national economic conditions is not dependent upon who Texans casts a vote for....unless you have some BLS data linking those unrelated data sets. Obama won in spite of your fellow idiots.Guess Texans disagreed as Obama lost the state by 3 million votes and just elected another Republican governor with 60% of the vote.
You fail to account for the 9 million jobs lost during the recession. Why do you chose to ignore this fact?
The labor market did not reach it's bottom. Since 2010, more than 12 million jobs have been created; this is a fact that you cannot deny.
You have your years mixed up.
And what exactly does that tell you? You think that TX leading the nation in job creation benefited from the Obama economy? you have no idea what the charts show but because you think they make your point you post them. Here are the numbers that matter
December 2007 there were 146 million working Americans and today that is 148 million
When Obama took office and passed his stimulus to create shovel ready jobs there were 142 million working Americans, today that is 148 million
In January 2001 the debt was 10.6 trillion and today it is 18.2 trillion. Are those the result you want to tout?
Let me know why the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth and why there are still so many part time employees and discouraged workers with such a strong Obama economy?
Secular stagnation is a condition of negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy. When per capita income stays at relatively high levels, the percentage of savings is likely to start exceeding the percentage of longer-term investments in, for example, infrastructure and education, that are necessary to sustain future economic growth. The absence of such investments (and consequently of the economic growth) leads to declining levels of per capita income (and consequently of per capita savings). With the reduced percentage savings rate converging with the reduced investment rate, economic growth comes to a standstill – ie, it stagnates. In a free economy, consumers anticipating secular stagnation, might transfer their savings to more attractive-looking foreign countries. This would lead to a devaluation of their domestic currency, which would potentially boost their exports, assuming that the country did have goods or services that could be exported.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?