Where are the Americans

[Hlleonard]

Does anybody here believe the lower and middle class are in better shape today that they were before reaganomics?

Does anybody here believe the upper class hasn't gained wealth as compared to the other two?

Does anybody here believe the end result is not directly caused by the idea that if you let the rich make all the money they can they will allow that to "trickle down"?... sure they will but only if you are able to force that trickle down.

Does anybody here believe cutting those taxes did not lead to the debt boondongle we have today, if you do. look at the top tax rates before and after reagan... trickle down was a sham that only benefited the wealthy.

Does anybody remember what Bush1 referred to trickle down as?
31 percent: Top tax rate in 1991
50 percent: Top tax rate in 1986
70 percent: Top tax rate in 1980
91 percent: Top tax rate in 1963

[psprowler]

Does anybody here believe the lower and middle class are in better shape today that they were before reaganomics?

Does anybody here believe the upper class hasn't gained wealth as compared to the other two?

Does anybody here believe the end result is not directly caused by the idea that if you let the rich make all the money they can they will allow that to "trickle down"?... sure they will but only if you are able to force that trickle down.

Does anybody here believe cutting those taxes did not lead to the debt boondongle we have today, if you do. look at the top tax rates before and after reagan... trickle down was a sham that only benefited the wealthy.

Does anybody remember what Bush1 referred to trickle down as?
31 percent: Top tax rate in 1991
50 percent: Top tax rate in 1986
70 percent: Top tax rate in 1980
91 percent: Top tax rate in 1963

As a mere sperm cell I was not able to come to any conclusions about wealth distribution amongst classes before Reagan became president. I just know that you can't artificially inflate something like wages and not expect those wages to be offset by an increase in cost, reduction in workforce or both. Raising minimum wage at a place like McDonald's for example from 7.25 to 15 dollars - you are getting the same exact production from the worker - they aren't going to magically start cranking out 100 more hamburgers per hour. The owner would still like to make a profit because after all, he put in the hard work and took the investment risks of owning his own business. So what's he going to do?

It's greed on both ends. On the top end the executive has to make 1.5 billion instead of 1.25 billion and on the low end it's entitlement greed. Everybody has "x" so I deserve to have "x" as well. Then I buy "x" with money I didn't have and now I don't have enough to buy "y" which I actually need. The priorities are not in order whatsoever. Most folks could made ends meet if they made better decisions with their money. However that doesn't start at age 30 or 40 when for most that's too late. It starts early in life. Virtually every decision you make in life has consequences. There is no "reset" button, although the government is doing their best to try and create one.

There will always be poor people. There will always be rich people. I don't care if the CEO is snorting coke off a strippers back on a yacht somewhere in the South Pacific while filming it in HD for later viewing on a 106" projector screen.

[psprowler]

And to kygorski's point I think he does make a valid one. Good jobs don't go begging. They have to be earned and are not just given. If that's the point he was trying to make I agree. Don't always agree with him, but do in this instance.

[GeoFisher]

Talking to a liberal is like flushing a TURD down the toilet.

You only have to listen and smell it for a little while......then all is good, until the next TURD.

Hold on while I go take a big ole Hlleonard and wipe my waterdog101......

[roadrunner]

Does anybody here believe the lower and middle class are in better shape today that they were before reaganomics?

Does anybody here believe the upper class hasn't gained wealth as compared to the other two?

Does anybody here believe the end result is not directly caused by the idea that if you let the rich make all the money they can they will allow that to "trickle down"?... sure they will but only if you are able to force that trickle down.

Does anybody here believe cutting those taxes did not lead to the debt boondongle we have today, if you do. look at the top tax rates before and after reagan... trickle down was a sham that only benefited the wealthy.

Does anybody remember what Bush1 referred to trickle down as?
31 percent: Top tax rate in 1991
50 percent: Top tax rate in 1986
70 percent: Top tax rate in 1980
91 percent: Top tax rate in 1963

I can assure you the middle class was much better off in the Reagan administration than they are under Obama administration he has destroyed the middle class and has a huge expansion to the lower class. Why do you think his policies were destroyed this last election------because THEY HAVE NOT WORKED AND THEY WILL NOT WORK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER. As far as your trickle down theory that was a label given by the liberals trying to make it look like it id not work and evidently you are one of the ones who drank the kool aid.

[know1]

The fact that you can only get Non-Americans to apply tells me that our biggest problems lie with legal Americans and not with Non-Americans.

I'm sure that won't be a popular opinion, but I think I'd rather have people who want to be here and want to be productive rather than those that don't.

[Hlleonard]

The fact that you can only get Non-Americans to apply tells me that our biggest problems lie with legal Americans and not with Non-Americans.

I'm sure that won't be a popular opinion, but I think I'd rather have people who want to be here and want to be productive rather than those that don't.

--
the fact that people living stacked up in a trailer or house and willing to work for 20 or 30% less than an american has to have to feed his family says a lot about what businesses are willing to do to cut the throat of the american work force.

[mhall]

The fact that you can only get Non-Americans to apply tells me that our biggest problems lie with legal Americans and not with Non-Americans.

I'm sure that won't be a popular opinion, but I think I'd rather have people who want to be here and want to be productive rather than those that don't.

I vet everyone of these people to the best I can and feel all I have are legal. They have been here years most of them and file taxes every year.

I toyed with how to word this thread. My point was young caucasians, blacks don't apply here because it is pretty hard physical work not really that bad in fact when I was young I thought it was gravy. Quite frankly it is to much like real work there seems to be the real issue.

[Hlleonard]

I can assure you the middle class was much better off in the Reagan administration than they are under Obama administration he has destroyed the middle class and has a huge expansion to the lower class. Why do you think his policies were destroyed this last election------because THEY HAVE NOT WORKED AND THEY WILL NOT WORK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER. As far as your trickle down theory that was a label given by the liberals trying to make it look like it id not work and evidently you are one of the ones who drank the kool aid.

--

Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as "Reaganomics" or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.

[GeoFisher]

Does anybody here believe the lower and middle class are in better shape today that they were before reaganomics?

Does anybody here believe the upper class hasn't gained wealth as compared to the other two?

Does anybody here believe the end result is not directly caused by the idea that if you let the rich make all the money they can they will allow that to "trickle down"?... sure they will but only if you are able to force that trickle down.

Does anybody here believe cutting those taxes did not lead to the debt boondongle we have today, if you do. look at the top tax rates before and after reagan... trickle down was a sham that only benefited the wealthy.

Does anybody remember what Bush1 referred to trickle down as?
31 percent: Top tax rate in 1991
50 percent: Top tax rate in 1986
70 percent: Top tax rate in 1980
91 percent: Top tax rate in 1963

Voodoo Economics.........and BUSH 1 was wrong.........

The problem with your chart is that we're now in a situation where people don't work. We have 41 million families that don't pay federal taxes. IN fact, you and I pay them on average about $4000.00 EACH. lets see 41,000,000 * 4000.00 ****, that is one freakin gigantic number.

That my friends............is about 164 BILLION dollars given to dumb **** sum bitches for making bad decisions.

Now lets, enforce some federal tax collection on those jokers.......say 10%, which is a whole hell lot less than it was under Reagan. That 10% would be a nice number too.....about 80 Billion.

Hell don't look now, but with one fail swoop of my PEN, President GEO would eliminate 1/3 of our budget deficit by eliminating one of the biggest tit sucking programs our country has ever known.

Yea, dope yourself up, get laid, pop out a few kids, dope yourself up some more, drink and party a little....next thing you know, you're a gubment statistic sucking off the tit of uncle Sam.

I say cut off the TIT.

[GeoFisher]

mhall here is your answer they are all waiting for there unemployment to run out.
END OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS CREDITED FOR JOB SURGE
WashEx: “Sixty percent of job creation in 2014 was caused by the expiration of unemployment benefits, according to a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In late 2013, a standoff between Republicans and Democrats led to the abrupt expiration of long-term unemployment benefits. Democrats warned that the expiration would have disastrous ramifications, but Republicans had long argued that allowing Americans to collect unemployment benefits for an indefinite period of time provided a disincentive for them to work. The new working paper found that the expiration of benefits was responsible for the creation of over 1.8 million jobs. Nearly 1 million of those jobs were created by workers who would have otherwise stayed out of the labor force if unemployment benefits had been extended. Overall, almost 3 million jobs were created in 2014.”

I was waiting for someone besides me posting that............

[GeoFisher]

--
Left or right, ceo's are a disease that has been growing for the last 30 or 40 years with no hope of a cure.... Trickle down has no political bias, it allows all businesses to funnel assets from the bottom to the top and has for a good many years under the precept of businesses prospering will somehow not find its way into the bank accounts of those at the top and nowhere else.. Has worked about as well wings on pigs... Unions have a bad side which I have never denied but along with the weakening of the unions comes the economy we are constantly whining about, again 2x2 never equals 4... Being responsible for ourselves doesn't seem to be working very well does it..

Where is the dang unlike button.

You know, you can take all the ceo's in the country and combine their income, and it will come up to less than 1% of the entire freakin GDP. You folks on the left don't get it. Talent costs money, and talent DEMAND costs money.

If a CEO takes a company from a 30 dollar stock to a 150 dollar stock, on HIS VISION and HIS leadership, you're **** straight he's worth every single penny the shareholders and the board choose to pay him.

Why do you suppose one particular athlete can generate a 30 million dollar contract and the other can generate a 3 million dollar contract? YOU know the answer. It doesn't matter if I think they are both over paid. The DEMAND is there for what they provide, therefore if you have to pay 30 million dollars to get his services, you pay 30 million dollars.

One day, maybe in my lifetime, you will understand, but I doubt it.