- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting Chart on Income Adjusted for Inflation since 70's
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:32 pm to AUbused
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:32 pm to AUbused
quote:What part of my quote is partisan? I'd like to know so I can avoid being associated with any political entity in the future.
You sound like a partisan robot
quote:Translation: "about to be poned, avoiding any real conversation"
as such I'll be avoiding any real conversation with you. Enjoy your day.
Enjoy your day.
2
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:32 pm to AUbused
quote:
Unfortunately for you its been proven true over and over in history. Crime, violence, and often revolt stem from a people who have no hope for the future. It is in the best interest of a population to maintain a minimal acceptable standard of living for the benefit of society as a whole. Im not saying that current US poverty profiles don't meet that standard....just saying there is a line.
Yes, you said it.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:36 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:Nice poneage.
Translation: "about to be poned, avoiding any real conversation"
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:44 pm to deltaland
quote:
If you look at the start of the growth of income inequality it directly correlates with the increase in size of the Government. Welfare, corporate subsidies, higher taxes, more regulation. Yet those on the left think by having more welfare, taxes, regulation will fix the problem.
Exactly.
Let's have a bigger gov't with MORE regulation and a MORE progressive tax code. That'll fix it!
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
So the theory is if we just take more from the wealthy (just a little bit more) and give to the poor (just a little bit more) we can stave off a violent revolution?
1. I think your facts are way off base. Yes the economy sucks currently, but there aren't institutional barriers that prevent people from moving from one wealth category to another. Sure, ditch diggers, as a whole, may have stagnant wages, but nothing says you have to be a ditch digger. That is probably a bad example since manual labor can do better than say fast food employee, but you get my point. As long as mobility exists, hope exists.
2. I think the prescription is wrong. Additional benefits might help delay a problem, but they make the day of reckoning even worse. Look at Greece. Increase the public sector and you endanger the private sector. This leads to less growth, with even more stagnant wages. Which of course some will demand government "corrections" for. Eventually the house of cards collapses.
Now is the US close to that? No. Would a minor increase in the capital gains or estate tax destroy the economy? No. Would increasing welfare benefits plunge us into a dark age of despair? No.
But these are steps in the wrong direction. Provide for free education so people can better themselves. Provide a safety net for hard times. And then get out of the way and let the private sector provide jobs.
The government DOES have a role in stabilizing the economy; but buying off citizens has been done before and bread and circuses didn't work then either.
1. I think your facts are way off base. Yes the economy sucks currently, but there aren't institutional barriers that prevent people from moving from one wealth category to another. Sure, ditch diggers, as a whole, may have stagnant wages, but nothing says you have to be a ditch digger. That is probably a bad example since manual labor can do better than say fast food employee, but you get my point. As long as mobility exists, hope exists.
2. I think the prescription is wrong. Additional benefits might help delay a problem, but they make the day of reckoning even worse. Look at Greece. Increase the public sector and you endanger the private sector. This leads to less growth, with even more stagnant wages. Which of course some will demand government "corrections" for. Eventually the house of cards collapses.
Now is the US close to that? No. Would a minor increase in the capital gains or estate tax destroy the economy? No. Would increasing welfare benefits plunge us into a dark age of despair? No.
But these are steps in the wrong direction. Provide for free education so people can better themselves. Provide a safety net for hard times. And then get out of the way and let the private sector provide jobs.
The government DOES have a role in stabilizing the economy; but buying off citizens has been done before and bread and circuses didn't work then either.
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 4:03 pm to AUbused
Why doesn't NPR show a graph of what the influx of illegals can do to the entitlement system in the next 10 years.
I'm all for giving the poors just enough to stay fat and happy. I don't want to live next to Julian, Ricky, Bubbles, or J-Roc
I'm all for giving the poors just enough to stay fat and happy. I don't want to live next to Julian, Ricky, Bubbles, or J-Roc
Posted on 10/3/14 at 4:11 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Last sentence in that quote........you should read it.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 4:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Double
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 4:14 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
Translation: "about to be poned, avoiding any real conversation
Translation:
When i want your opinion ill listen to it on talk radio.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 4:17 pm to the808bass
Looks like Carter did as much for the poors as Obama has.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 4:24 pm to AUbused
quote:If "it" says that, then "it" is lying "its" arse off.
It also says that wages have fallen over 40 years for 40% of the workforce.
Did you gain that erroneous conclusion from something in the NPR Link?
Posted on 10/3/14 at 7:19 pm to a want
quote:
You'll really hate it when 75% of voters decide to affect change.
(Hint: the shift will be to the left)
Why would 75% of the voters want that?
I'm not in the top 25% for wealth or income, and the Democrats are actively harming my economic interests. All of your class warfare rhetoric won't change that.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 7:37 pm to AUbused
quote:
It also says that wages have fallen over 40 years for 40% of the workforce. Im sorry that data doesn't fit your model of the world and makes up upset.
quote:E.g.,
You seem to feel threatened by facts.
quote:
The non-fiction section of the library must be a nightmare for you.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 8:50 pm to AUbused
Posted on 10/4/14 at 7:04 am to AUbused
Can any of the boards resident liberals tell the class what major change happened in the 70's and early 80's that may have impacted this?
Posted on 10/4/14 at 7:59 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The bottom 90% all decided to become lazy. Its just a coincidence (but if there is a cause, its definitley big gument and dee libruls!)
good point and I agree with you...the poor are definitely more lazy now than in the past. Upward mobility is so much easier now that it ever, ever has been. those on the bottom are there because they choose to be...
oh, that's right, I forgot about the caste system we have that prohibits them from getting married before they have kids, finishing high school, and getting technical training.
you're trying to be a smart arse, but the truth actually is the welfare state has encouraged people to depend on gov't for their basic needs...anyone who wants to earn a living can if they choose, open your eyes
Posted on 10/4/14 at 8:50 am to AUbused
I thought the United States was about individual freedom/liberty. Making everyone and everything the same is unrealistic and isn't possible when people make their own decisions in life.
The issue of "income inequality" is a liberal campaign tactic to divide and anger people to gain votes. Don't fall for it.
The issue of "income inequality" is a liberal campaign tactic to divide and anger people to gain votes. Don't fall for it.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News