If you believe charity starts at home then I must donate 99% of my earnings. She that must be obeyed , the kids and the grandchildren are my charity of choice.
Bob
Over 92 million Americans out of work force
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
If you believe charity starts at home then I must donate 99% of my earnings. She that must be obeyed , the kids and the grandchildren are my charity of choice.
Bob
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
jammin man;443094Ahh nice try dodger said:Sure Steve, I'll answer your question..........
We should continue to fight poverty because it does work.
You say the we have been fighting povery for 50 years and have "consistantly failed"..............really?
This chart covers almose exactly 50 years. (US Census)
Please tell us more about you definition of insanity.......
Say Steve did you get your data from Fox?
Last edited:
Sure Steve, I'll answer your question..........
We should continue to fight poverty because it does work.
You say the we have been fighting povery for 50 years and have "consistantly failed"..............really?
This chart covers almose exactly 50 years. (US Census)
Please tell us more about you definition of insanity.......
Say Steve did you get your data from Fox?
Jim you need to retake 4th grade math. The poverty rate in 2012 was 15%. In 1965 it was 14%. It has fluctuated around 12-15.5% for 50 years but never effectively improved, this despite trillions of dollars spent on social programs. You define that as success? My definition of insanity is evolving to anything you say! How can you look at flat poverty rates and conclude our federal govt spends our tax dollars wisely combatting poverty? Saying "it does work" is a blatant lie.
Apparently there are 95 million out of work now how many in 1965, and the poverty percentage rate hasn't risen with all those extra millions out of work? Seems to have worked to me.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Deleted.
Nick, the population growth in the US has been significant in the last 50 years but for every 20 people we add, 3 are in poverty so the poverty rate has been the same. In other words, we're basically treading water.
The interesting fact on Jim's illustrious graph, which he will never acknowledge but it's there in black and white, is that the precipitous drop in poverty is from 1959 (22.5%) to 1965 (14.5%). Since that time we've been treading water. All of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" programs started after 1965 and the poverty rate stopped decreasing. Top income tax rate in 1959 was 91%, in 1965 it was 70% and dropping.
Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing (raising more tax revenue for our fed govt to fight poverty) and expecting a different outcome (after over $15 trillion spent on social programs the poverty rate is unchanged but "this time it'll be different").
The interesting fact on Jim's illustrious graph, which he will never acknowledge but it's there in black and white, is that the precipitous drop in poverty is from 1959 (22.5%) to 1965 (14.5%). Since that time we've been treading water. All of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" programs started after 1965 and the poverty rate stopped decreasing. Top income tax rate in 1959 was 91%, in 1965 it was 70% and dropping.
Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing (raising more tax revenue for our fed govt to fight poverty) and expecting a different outcome (after over $15 trillion spent on social programs the poverty rate is unchanged but "this time it'll be different").
So what would the poverty rate have been if that money had not been spent. Seems to be motivate the rich by giving them more money, motivate the poor by giving them less.
We use to have a middle class...it is disappearing rapidly. One of our erstwhile members expressed the opinion that armed insurrection would be a reality only if the government proceeded to eliminate our second ammendment rights (the right to "bear arms"), but I respectfully submit that the French needed no weapons greater than pitchforks and a guillotine to address Marie Antoinette's determination that the peasants could just make do with nothing more than bread while the gentrified population dined on truffles and caviar.
I say there is power in numbers, and if the wealthy and ultra-wealthy continue their onslaught on our middle class, leaving only a few wealthy/ultra-wealthy and a multitude of poor it will result in class warfare the likes of which we as a species have never seen. There is power in numbers that even the guard shacks and surveillance systems of the communities where the wealthy live cannot deter. When that happens, the opportunity for the wealthy to read the writing on the wall will have long passed...
Hard to cheer for that :thumbsdown:
Doug
I say there is power in numbers, and if the wealthy and ultra-wealthy continue their onslaught on our middle class, leaving only a few wealthy/ultra-wealthy and a multitude of poor it will result in class warfare the likes of which we as a species have never seen. There is power in numbers that even the guard shacks and surveillance systems of the communities where the wealthy live cannot deter. When that happens, the opportunity for the wealthy to read the writing on the wall will have long passed...
Hard to cheer for that :thumbsdown:
Doug
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Amusing thread in many places, much like the late 90s when the crazed right wing lived in denial of economic progress....anyway....
I'm curious Lonesome Blob, this 15% of your income you give charity...what are said charities?
I'm curious Lonesome Blob, this 15% of your income you give charity...what are said charities?
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I owned and ran a business for over 30 years I paid my staff exceedingly well. There were several millionaires among my sales staff and all the technitians and admin workers were paid well over the award rate and they paid a lot of tax. Interestingly in recent years I had several female workers resign because they had worked out that as single mothers they could receive more in welfare after tax and paying for child daycare than they were getting working full time.
My point is that throwing welfare cheques at some people gives them a dis- incentive to work.
Similarly a 16 year old apprentice plumber can earn more on the dole than he takes home after tax, why bother to work?
Welfare is paying people not to work...of course I am talking about able bodied people not the elderly or disabled.
My point is that throwing welfare cheques at some people gives them a dis- incentive to work.
Similarly a 16 year old apprentice plumber can earn more on the dole than he takes home after tax, why bother to work?
Welfare is paying people not to work...of course I am talking about able bodied people not the elderly or disabled.
Agreed, Pete!
We had a president who attempted to put an end to that...change "Welfare" to "Workfare". To get public assistance was a temporary issue, only long enough to get some sort of mandated job training so that they could develop a skill that would let them join the workforce again. Sounds pretty good, right?
He was a Democrat.
And he was a liberal.
His name was Bill Clinton.
And yes, his moral bankrupcy is legendary...but not so much the fact that when he left office we had a budget surplus and were at peace with the world.
What have the conservatives and Republicans done for us since?
Made the rich richer and the poor poorer...and all at the expense of the middle class.
Talk about redistribution of wealth.....:thumbsdown:
Aren't we just the lucky bunch :worried:
Cheers!
Doug
We had a president who attempted to put an end to that...change "Welfare" to "Workfare". To get public assistance was a temporary issue, only long enough to get some sort of mandated job training so that they could develop a skill that would let them join the workforce again. Sounds pretty good, right?
He was a Democrat.
And he was a liberal.
His name was Bill Clinton.
And yes, his moral bankrupcy is legendary...but not so much the fact that when he left office we had a budget surplus and were at peace with the world.
What have the conservatives and Republicans done for us since?
Made the rich richer and the poor poorer...and all at the expense of the middle class.
Talk about redistribution of wealth.....:thumbsdown:
Aren't we just the lucky bunch :worried:
Cheers!
Doug
The Republican Congress and Senate under Clinton voted in that balanced budget act, It was a Republican Bill, not Clinton's. He sign it in, he didn't have a choice, you may want to look that up. The National Debt only went up $1.7 trillion in that 8 year term. $4.9 trillion during Bush's 8 year term with a Democrat Congress and Senate in the last 3 years, Democrat Senate from 2008 to present and Republican Congress 2012 to present. In the last 5 years the National Debt has gone up $6.9 trillion. No were not a lucky bunch!
Last edited:
Have to agree Doug we had a socialist Labour (communist for my American Conservative friends) government for many years and the wealth of the richest increased.
So I find this interesting.
Ms Fabiani slammed Labour's record in office as UK government statistics showed that the real-terms gap in incomes between the highest and lowest earners grew by a staggering £237 per week between 1997 and 2010. Ms Fabiani believes that the figures prove that although Labour in opposition claims it will introduce measures to reduce and ameliorate social inequalities, Labour in office does the exact opposite.
From Sky news
However, not everyone has gained equally with the stratification of society strengthening, according to the research.
"While wealth has soared in the past decade, there is a large divide in where it has accumulated," Mr Patel said.
"The wealthiest 10% of households hold 22 times more wealth, on average, than those in the bottom half."
Lloyds used official figures as well as those from its own database to make its findings.
Last edited:
Irrespective of graphs and percentages there is and always will be a massive difference between the wages of a drone and a company director. Who is going to pay Rolls Royce money for a Fiesta ? This whole inequality malarkey is merely a vote harvesting tool for the political parties who have for years banged on about this with little or no change despite all of them having had their time in office. Left,right or center nothing has or will change.
Bob
Bob
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
O.k.I'm sick of this we hate the wealthy bullshit. My family were dirt poor I remember going to school with no shoes.
I saw being able to work as a privilege and I worked my arse off at what ever job I had.
I very soon realised that working for profit was far better than working for wages. When I retired I employed over 70 people all of whom were paid well above the award rate. I am considered wealthy by some, I'm not, a trip to Monaco made me realise that.
Stop being jealous of wealthy people, get of your fucking arses and contribute to the economy and stop bitching about people who are better off than you are.
Yes I know some are "obscenely" rich and some are lazy buggars who inherited their wealth.
But in my country and in America there is no reason for any able bodied person not to work.
Ask any hotel can they get enough people to clean and make the beds.
Stop fucking whinging and get off your arse America.
I saw being able to work as a privilege and I worked my arse off at what ever job I had.
I very soon realised that working for profit was far better than working for wages. When I retired I employed over 70 people all of whom were paid well above the award rate. I am considered wealthy by some, I'm not, a trip to Monaco made me realise that.
Stop being jealous of wealthy people, get of your fucking arses and contribute to the economy and stop bitching about people who are better off than you are.
Yes I know some are "obscenely" rich and some are lazy buggars who inherited their wealth.
But in my country and in America there is no reason for any able bodied person not to work.
Ask any hotel can they get enough people to clean and make the beds.
Stop fucking whinging and get off your arse America.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I agree "hate the wealthy" and class warfare doesn't really get us anywhere.
But then again, neither does exponentially increasing income and capital accumulation disparity rates. They get to the point where they start to threaten the very idea of democracy, and societal fairness, and you have a problem.
What if the only the wealthy can afford quality health care and things like 3D printed organs, such that the life spans of the top 1% stretch into the 150s, while the lifespans of everyone else stagnate in the 80s or, as is the case with the very poor in the US, actually begin to decrease?
What if court decisions like Citizens United continue the trend to granting free speech and political rights to corporations and "dollars," such that it becomes easier and easier for the ultra wealthy not to steal elections, but to have such influence over the political process as to make the remaining 99% feel completely shut out?
That's where we are headed right now in the US. I fully agree you have to reward success, and I've been lucky enough and worked hard enough to be a part of that. But at some point, you also have to realize it isn't just about you (not directing that at anyone in particular here), that we are all in this together, and if we create a society of 1% haves and 99% have nots, well, we are in BIG trouble.
But then again, neither does exponentially increasing income and capital accumulation disparity rates. They get to the point where they start to threaten the very idea of democracy, and societal fairness, and you have a problem.
What if the only the wealthy can afford quality health care and things like 3D printed organs, such that the life spans of the top 1% stretch into the 150s, while the lifespans of everyone else stagnate in the 80s or, as is the case with the very poor in the US, actually begin to decrease?
What if court decisions like Citizens United continue the trend to granting free speech and political rights to corporations and "dollars," such that it becomes easier and easier for the ultra wealthy not to steal elections, but to have such influence over the political process as to make the remaining 99% feel completely shut out?
That's where we are headed right now in the US. I fully agree you have to reward success, and I've been lucky enough and worked hard enough to be a part of that. But at some point, you also have to realize it isn't just about you (not directing that at anyone in particular here), that we are all in this together, and if we create a society of 1% haves and 99% have nots, well, we are in BIG trouble.
As above but without taking your eye off the ball you need a competitive workforce with incentives to compete in the world markets. As i have already posted this has to start with affordable housing ,cheap transport and low food prices. That in turn makes the poorer a lot wealthier.
Bob
