Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

9 Out Of 10 Americans Don''t Expect Raises To Compensate For Rising Price Of Goods, Survey Says \\n

A new survey from American Pulse, released in June, shows that 9 out of 10 American workers are not expecting salary increases next year to compensate for the rising cost of basic necessities like fuel and food. %0D %0D

by Anonymousreply 6612/30/2012

Raise? I haven't had one since 2008 and I don't expect one any time soon.

by Anonymousreply 106/23/2011

I expect one this year. My company went without one in 2009.

by Anonymousreply 206/23/2011

We haven't had raises at all since 2009. Overheard the boss saying "Where the hell are they going to go?" I hope the asshole goes off a bridge in his new BMW.

by Anonymousreply 306/23/2011

Thanks to a promotion, I've never made more money - and I am thankful for that. But I've also never been so cautious with money either cutting where I can.

by Anonymousreply 406/23/2011

ummmm, Americans in the middle class have not had wage increases to compensate for rising prices of goods since Reagan. The middle class has just been riding bubbles for three decades; wages have basically been stagnant.

by Anonymousreply 506/23/2011

1 out of 10 Americans is rich and expects to get everyone else's raise added to the vast amount of wealth they've already stockpiled.

by Anonymousreply 606/23/2011

Yet working class Republicans will still find a way to blame %E2%80%9CObama%E2%80%99s economy%E2%80%9D while their bosses get 20% raises, and they will continue to make it a point of pride that their workplaces have managed to keep unions out.

by Anonymousreply 706/23/2011

r7, because politics has always been about identity rather than freedom and/or choice. Kings and Queens have relied on such for centuries.

Poor whites would rather have a white rich exclusive elitist in charge than any black who believes in equality for all. Unfortunately, politics is about bragging rights, not civil rights.

by Anonymousreply 806/23/2011

[quote]Raise? I haven't had one since 2008 and I don't expect one any time soon%0D %0D Wow, me too! I wouldn't even dare to ask for one at this time.

by Anonymousreply 1006/23/2011

uh huh, sure you're right r9.

by Anonymousreply 1106/23/2011

But, but, but...Krugman and Bernanke SWEAR that there's no inflation!

They can't be lying, can they?

I'm sure none of this has anything to do with the trillions of dollars the government has printed in the last few years to keep the banksters happy. It's those damn capitalists!!!

by Anonymousreply 1206/23/2011

According to the Fed Czar the only inflation is occuring in such "luxe items" as food and gas. Thankfully Bernie B says the price of Faberge eggs has actually declined. Take that you ungrateful serfs.

by Anonymousreply 1306/23/2011

And inflation in gasoline isn't going to stop. It's not Obama, it's not Bush. %0D %0D As more of the population of India and China move into the middle class, they're going to want the things that our middle-class has, such as cars. Cars use gas, etc.%0D %0D Commodity inflation is here to stay, barring a move to more energy-efficient modes of transportation.%0D %0D

by Anonymousreply 1406/23/2011

R14, I'm sure none of it has to do with the fact that the US$ has been severely devalued by the FED so that the banks don't suffer.

If your diagnosis that it was only due to competition from India and China was true, then why have coffee, cabbage, beef, pork, and (most importantly) gold surged in price over the last few years?

by Anonymousreply 1506/23/2011

R15, I don't presume to be an expert on commodities or global finance.%0D %0D But I think it's pretty clear that increased demand for oil is at least some sort of cause for rise in prices. Yes, there may be corollary (and significant) reasons that are related to the lower value of the dollar, etc., but you'd be a fool to assume that demand doesn't play some role in pricing. And that demand is only likely to become greater, while the value of the dollar is likely to fluctuate over time.

by Anonymousreply 1606/23/2011

R16, that was a surprisingly cogent and civil response. Thank you. People that are genuinely open to understanding things outside of their norm are exceedingly rare on this site.

In a free market, rising demand IS associated with rising price, but rising prices also alter behavior so people use less of the higher priced good. When the price of a staple item, like oil, rises it is generally a slow and smooth process. A little over a decade ago gasoline cost around a $1 a gallon. Now it is nearly $4. That can only be explained by examining an underlying factor- in this case, the fact that the government has printed trillions of new dollars to finance wars all over the world, rising government expenditures and a regulatory system that makes creating new entrepreneurial ventures more costly and difficult.

If you want to understand why this is happening, start at the link. Once you understand the relatively simple economics that explain this, many disparate threads will click into place.

Enjoy!

by Anonymousreply 1706/23/2011

Shit ya I'm lucky to have a job!!

by Anonymousreply 1806/23/2011

So how do we get out of this mess R17 ?

by Anonymousreply 1906/24/2011

Like electricity, my usage of gas has declined drastically as I've purchased much more efficient toys. However, my monthly expenditures for each has still gone up.

My monthly expenditures on food for two has increased $60 over the last four years - while I've completely eliminated the frozen food aisle.

OTOH, my porn, cable and Target expenditures have plunged to zero during the same period. My internet and shoe bills have fallen drastically.

by Anonymousreply 2006/24/2011

R19, a stable currency would be priority #1. As long as the government can print as much money as it wants then the majority of the society will remain impoverished.

For #2, the wise words of Tacitus provide guidance- "A corrupt society has many laws". It is impossible to live a single day without breaking some federal law in some way. The law should be simple, easily understood and just. Our current legal system is none of the three.

Finally, power must be devolved back to the local level. It's impossible for the average person to change the law at a supra-federal level. If laws are set at a local level then it gives citizens 2 options- lobby for change at a community level, or migrate to an area where the laws are more just. In the US today almost all laws and regulations are set at the federal level, making it impossible for the average person to have any power, while powerful actors (GM, Citi, Monsanto, BP, etc.) can bribe politicians to craft laws that protect them from competition.

If you REALLY want change- ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and elsewhere, ending the drug war, ending the constant bailouts of banks, ending the corporate welfare for big business- then start educating yourself about the nature of liberty and start supporting Ron Paul for president.

by Anonymousreply 2106/24/2011

I'm so sick of polls... Polls telling us what a handful of people "expect" or "believe." It's complete and utter laziness on the part of "news" organizations. There is no story here, and yet people latch onto these types of reports like they're gospel and they drag the collective sentiment down, down, down.

by Anonymousreply 2206/24/2011

[quote]But, but, but...Krugman and Bernanke SWEAR that there's no inflation!%0D %0D Dear, is it *really* that hard for you to actually look up a few facts before you post total gibberish? You're wrong, dear, both about the current state of inflation and about what Bernanke and Krugman have said about it.%0D %0D [quote]They can't be lying, can they?%0D %0D No, dear, they aren't, but you sure are. Or you're ignorant. Or, come to think of it, both.%0D %0D [quote]I'm sure none of this has anything to do with the trillions of dollars the government has printed in the last few years to keep the banksters happy.%0D %0D Oddly enough, dear, you're right. It has nothing to do with that. Amazing! You finally posted *one* factual statement! Will miracles never case?

by Anonymousreply 2306/24/2011

Yeah R7, cause it's still Bushes fault. &P

by Anonymousreply 2406/24/2011

[quote]People that are genuinely open to understanding things outside of their norm are exceedingly rare on this site.%0D %0D LOL... Coming from you, that's rich, dear, since you are most emphatically not open to "understanding things outside of [your] norm."%0D %0D [quote]In a free market, rising demand IS associated with rising price, but rising prices also alter behavior so people use less of the higher priced good.%0D %0D That's Econ 101, dear, but there's a reason that there are more courses in an economics curriculum. In Econ 201, had you actually paid attention, you would have encountered a discussion of elastic vs. inelastic demand, that it matters what the good in question is, and that other factors play a significant role. Sadly, such analysis is beyond your comprehension.%0D %0D [quote]That can only be explained by examining an underlying factor- in this case, the fact that the government has printed trillions of new dollars to finance wars all over the world%0D %0D ROFL.... Dear heart, that's the reason that the economic school you love so much will never be more than a fringe theory pushed by wackos such as yourself. *Everything* comes down to your pet peeve, dear, which is really rather silly, since the economy is far more complex than that.%0D %0D People who believe as you do have been predicting an economic apocalypse for roughly 100 years, dear. Don't you think it's about time it happened?%0D %0D [quote]If you want to understand why this is happening, start at the link. Once you understand the relatively simple economics that explain this, many disparate threads will click into place.%0D %0D Oh, by all means, visit that site, but be sure to turn your brain off, first, as much of what they write completely defies common sense, not to mention reality. It is pretty hilarious shit, though, just as RPT's comments here are. I heartily recommend them for the entertainment value alone; just don't expect to actually learn anything.

by Anonymousreply 2506/24/2011

[quote]a stable currency would be priority #1%0D %0D Yawn... the gold standard again, dear? Has it really escaped your notice that currency, and the economy, was not exactly "stable" when we were on the gold standard?%0D %0D [quote]As long as the government can print as much money as it wants then the majority of the society will remain impoverished.%0D %0D No, dear, I'm afraid not. But thank you for playing; we have some lovely consolation prizes for you.%0D %0D [quote]Finally, power must be devolved back to the local level.%0D %0D Yes, because national defense works *so* well when it's managed from the local level, not to mention things like, oh, the national energy, water, and transportation infrastructure, public health, investments in next-generation technologies, and the literally thousands of other matters that are best handled at the national level. Now what point did you think you were trying to make, dear?%0D %0D [quote]It's impossible for the average person to change the law at a supra-federal level.%0D %0D No shit, Sherlock. There's a reason for that.%0D %0D [quote]If you REALLY want change- ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and elsewhere, ending the drug war, ending the constant bailouts of banks, ending the corporate welfare for big business- then start educating yourself about the nature of liberty and start supporting Ron Paul for president.%0D %0D Really? Ron Paul will do all of that? All by himself? Well! Sign me up!%0D %0D Of course, along with all of that, you'd have the complete destruction of our economy once Paul's wacky economic theories take hold. Oh, well... you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...%0D %0D Love ya, RPT. You're just so much fun to play with. Never change.

by Anonymousreply 2606/24/2011

I've finally figured you out, Paul. You post snarky and botchy but fact-free "rebuttals" of no substance in an attempt to make people believe that you know something.

You never provide any proof or backing info, hoping that other socialists will just agree with you and move on.

It's the same game the media plays. Good job. You really are that slick, and that stupid.

by Anonymousreply 2706/24/2011

RPT ruins every thread tangentially touching on money (and quite a few others besides) with his unfocused rants -- and then comes back untold times to chide his "students" for not liseting to their "master."%0D %0D

by Anonymousreply 2806/24/2011

[quote]I've finally figured you out, Paul. You post snarky and botchy but fact-free "rebuttals" of no substance in an attempt to make people believe that you know something.%0D %0D ROFL... Dear heart, I've told you *exactly* what I'm doing, repeatedly. You still don't get it, dear. I'm mocking you, dear, making fun of you, showing you up as the ignorant, but oh so amusing, fool that you are. That is my sole purpose here. I will, and do, engage in serious debate with those worthy of serious debate. Sadly, that isn't you.%0D %0D [quote]You never provide any proof or backing info%0D %0D Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice, despite repeated attempts to bring this to your attention, that you engage in *precisely* the same behavior? You have never, not once, provided any "proof or backing info" for your many silly rants. Since the burden of proof is on you, and you have thus far entirely failed to meet that burden, I'm free to continue mocking you and not taking you, or your fact-free rants, seriously.%0D %0D [quote]It's the same game the media plays. Good job. You really are that slick, and that stupid.%0D %0D Love you too, dear. Smooches.

by Anonymousreply 2906/25/2011

[quote]and then comes back untold times to chide his "students" for not liseting to their "master." %0D %0D Well, after all, he's forgotten more about economics than we will ever know. He told us that himself. Oh, and be sure to buy lots of gold since RPT has told us that it will rise to $18,000 an ounce in the next few years. And RPT is never wrong.

by Anonymousreply 3006/25/2011

I thought there would be more naivety than 10 percent.

by Anonymousreply 3106/26/2011

r10

Try going to Burger King

by Anonymousreply 3309/28/2012

The economy is much better now than ever 6 months ago. It is getting better since 2008 but it's very slow growth.

by Anonymousreply 3409/28/2012

Things are looking good from my end. Businesses are keeping production at a profitable rate with expansion into new territories in 2013.

My commenced talks have had favorable projections.

In the building industry we were hit hard by the banking debacle. Fortunately we are in a great position now. We have added jobs that were eliminated in 2007.

Adaption is the key, working with, not against. Stay positive. Don't fall into the political trappings of negative people.

by Anonymousreply 3612/13/2012

[quote]Let's see- This was first posted 15 months ago, and the economy is even worse.

Actually, out here in the real world, the economy has noticeably improved in the past 15 months. You must tell us more about this fantasy world of yours.

[quote]But, libertarians are retarded.

Not all libertarians, no. Just you.

by Anonymousreply 3812/14/2012

[quote]Better make the most of this Xmas. A lot of companies I work with are shutting down on 12/31.

ROFL.... Of course they are. That's the really nice thing about living in a fantasy world: you can basically make up any shit you want.

by Anonymousreply 3912/14/2012

[quote]as soon as Bernanke quits printing, and interest rates rise dramatically, the housing industry will be fucked.

Good thing that's not going to happen, then, isn't it? Out here in the real world, Bernanke isn't going to "quit printing" until the economy has recovered, at which point the private sector will have sufficient money to build, purchase, and remodel homes.

The real issue, of course, isn't the Fed, even though that's your favorite monster; it's whether we will have worked our way through the overabundance of repossessed homes and whether the underwater homes will have been either sold or refinanced.

by Anonymousreply 4012/14/2012

Just had to comment on this particular bit of idiocy from a long time ago:

[quote]You never provide any proof or backing info

How ironic, coming from a moron who has never provided any proof or backing info....

And notice how certain he was that we were suffering from massive inflation.... Funny how that hyperinflation has never materialized and that inflation has been well under control since those confident predictions of his. Plus, we're still waiting for that $18,000 per ounce gold price.

by Anonymousreply 4112/14/2012

[quote]Adaption is the key, working with, not against. Stay positive. Don't fall into the political trappings of negative people.

Thanks for this. It's easy to get caught up with the naysayers.

by Anonymousreply 4212/14/2012

Wow, I love how the threads that expose how debt is killing the country get deleted.

by Anonymousreply 4312/14/2012

[quote]Wow, I love how the threads that expose how debt is killing the country get deleted.

Well, perhaps if you would stop endlessly resurrecting ancient threads that nobody cares about and stop posting mindless drivel, you could actually keep a thread intact.

Case in point: This thread. Your most recent post. Q.E.D.

by Anonymousreply 4412/14/2012

Oh, and your "debt" thread is alive and well, moron. Too bad you can't answer any of the counterpoints made there.

by Anonymousreply 4512/14/2012

This why I love R45

She is too stupid to see that the thread she linked was closed, likely because it exposed how the US debt is killing the poor.

Why she is so in love with the government is a mystery...

by Anonymousreply 4612/26/2012

This is why the economy is dying-

1.  Wealth and thus political power are highly concentrated.  The dynamics of rising wealth disparity and the increasing concentration of wealth are debatable; the disparity is not.  Roughly 70% of all financial wealth is held by the top 5%; within this top layer of ownership, the top ½ of 1% hold an outsized share.

2.  This preponderance of wealth in the hands of a few translates into an equivalent preponderance of political power, as there are no real limits on the purchase of political influence, favors and power.

3.  The U.S. income tax is highly progressive; most Federal taxes are paid by a minority of the citizenry.  The top 1% of taxpayers reported almost 17% of all taxable income and paid 37% of all income taxes.  The top 5% reported 32% of all income and paid 59% of the taxes, and the top 10% earned 43% of the income and paid 70% of the taxes.

The top 25% (those earning more than $66,193) paid 87% of the taxes.  The bottom 50% of taxpayers, roughly 70 million people, earned 13% of the income and paid 2% of the income taxes collected.

4.  There are roughly 127 million people who receive government transfers or benefits.  Sixty-one million recipients of Social Security and Medicare and 66 million people receiving welfare (SNAP food stamps, housing credits, Medicaid, etc.)  Since there are about 115 million full-time jobs in the U.S., this means there are 1.1 government dependents for every full-time worker in the U.S.  (For context, there are 315 million Americans and roughly 142 million jobs.  About 38 million of these jobs are part-time that pay less than $10,000 annually.  Fifty million wage earners earn less than $15,000 a year, and 61 million earn less than $20,000 annually.)

The Federal government counts a person who is self-employed and earns $100 a year as "employed" and a person who works one hour a week as "employed."  As a result, the only meaningful metric is full-time employment.

The top 25% who pay most of the taxes, roughly 30 million people, are a political minority compared to the 127 million people drawing direct payments/benefits from the Federal government and the 65+ million who pay essentially no income taxes (though they do pay the 7.65% Social Security/Medicare payroll tax).

Cont

by Anonymousreply 4712/26/2012

5.  This progressive tax structure is based largely on earned income; i.e., wages and self-employed income.  Unearned income (rents, dividends, stock options, hedge fund management fees, etc.) is treated much differently than earned income.  Unearned (rentier) income is governed by highly complex tax codes that lend themselves to politically controlled loopholes, subsidies, and exclusions. As a result, some profitable corporations not only pay no tax but actually receive subsidy payments from the government.  In other cases, politically powerful enterprises have tax laws written specifically to limit or erase their tax burden.

The tax code treats unearned income quite differently from earned income in many other ways.  For example, all unearned income is excluded from the Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes.  A self-employed person pays 15.3% of their earnings in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes; a person receiving the equivalent sum in rents and dividends pays zero Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes.

6.  The assets that generate unearned income are highly concentrated, and as a result so is the unearned income.  The top 1% owns twice as much stock-market wealth as the bottom 90%.  This income-producing wealth enables the top 1% to act as a financial aristocracy, buying influence and favors from equivalently concentrated political Elites.

This preponderance of ownership of income-producing assets is reflected in the income stream flowing to the top 5%:

7. Those without meaningful unearned income have seen their real incomes drop substantially.  Real household income has declined almost 10% since 2000:

Net worth has also declined as serial bubbles in stocks and housing popped:  American Households Hit 43-Year Low In Net Worth

Here is another look at the data.  Note that the drop in all household income is less than the decline in working-age households.  This is the result of Federal transfer payments to retirees, those on disability, aid to low-income households, etc., paid for with unprecedented deficit spending ($1.3 trillion annually).

Cont

by Anonymousreply 4812/26/2012

8.  Federal spending has followed an exponential trajectory.

Social Security costs over $800 billion, Medicare and Medicaid costs total about $800 billion annually, and the Pentagon/National Security budget is around $800 billion.  These three consume all Federal tax revenues.  Add in interest on the ballooning national debt ($220 billion to owners of so-called external Treasury debt) and the nation is running a $200 billion deficit even if the rest of the $1.1 trillion Federal spending were to magically vanish.

Federal expenditures have skyrocketed in the past 12 years, far exceeding inflation:

9.  Tax receipts topped out at $2.4 trillion, leaving a structural gap of $1.3 trillion.

Put these structural dynamics together and the endgame becomes clearly visible: Politically, a Tyranny of the Majority comprised of those who draw direct transfers/benefits from the Federal government, is ruled by the top ½ of 1% financial aristocracy who own the majority of income-generating assets.  The minority, who pay most of the taxes (the 24.5% between the majority and aristocracy), will see their taxes rise as the aristocracy buys loopholes and exclusions while the bottom 50% pay no income tax.

Financially, the Federal government’s spending has outrun the tax revenues being collected.  Structurally, Federal expenditures for entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Administration, etc.) will rise as Baby Boomers retire en masse over the next 15 years, while tax revenues will stagnate along with earned income.

There is no way to square these circles.

The political foundation of America is starkly unjust.  An entrenched financial Aristocracy buys the complicity of the bottom 50% and retirees with Federal transfers – a Tyranny of the Majority.  The 24.5% below the Aristocracy who pay most of the Federal taxes are dominated by this alliance. This may be legal, but is it just? Even more critically, is it sustainable?

The Status Quo rests on this Grand Political Bargain:

We in the Aristocracy will pay significant taxes as long as we control the levers of financial and political power. We in the top 24% will pay the rest of the income taxes as long as we and our children can continue to live well and accumulate wealth. We in the "middle class" will continue to work hard as long as we have hope of bettering our lifestyle and the lives of our children. We in the bottom 50% and retirees agree not to threaten the top 0.5%'s power as long as we continue to get our government transfers and benefits.

This Grand Bargain is coming apart as the promises made to everyone cannot possibly be met.  Claims on welfare and disability programs are skyrocketing at the same time that the demographics of an aging populace are causing 10,000 people a day to enter Social Security and Medicare, the two costliest government programs.  Meanwhile, the upper middle class that pays most of the taxes has been slammed with lower income and a devastating drop in their housing-based net worth.

According to former Congress members Chris Cox and Bill Archer, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion.

by Anonymousreply 4912/26/2012

This Grand Bargain is coming apart as the promises made to everyone cannot possibly be met.  Claims on welfare and disability programs are skyrocketing at the same time that the demographics of an aging populace are causing 10,000 people a day to enter Social Security and Medicare, the two costliest government programs.  Meanwhile, the upper middle class that pays most of the taxes has been slammed with lower income and a devastating drop in their housing-based net worth.

According to former Congress members Chris Cox and Bill Archer, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. That is roughly double the entire annual Federal budget.

They go on to note that “to collect enough tax revenue to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually.”  Expropriating the entire income of the top 25% of households that pay almost 90% of the tax and all corporate taxes would only bring in $6.7 trillion.

Clearly, the promises that have been made to 315 million Americans cannot be met, and the current strategies of financial repression (zero-interest rate policy, etc.) and massive fiscal deficits that subsidize favored cartels in defense, housing, education, and healthcare are unsustainable. The politically expedient “fixes” to the Fiscal Cliff (a slight increase in the tax rate on earned income above $250,000, etc.) will not fill the $86 trillion gap between what has been promised and what can be collected in taxes.

What few dare admit, much less state publicly, is that the Constitutional limits on the financial Aristocracy and the Tyranny of the Majority have failed.  This guarantees a future Constitutional crisis as each political class – the financial Aristocracy, the top 24% who pay most of the taxes, the dwindling middle class and the bottom 50% who depend on Federal transfers – will battle for control as the Status Quo collapses under the weight of its unsustainable promises.

by Anonymousreply 5012/26/2012

[quote]She is too stupid to see that the thread she linked was closed, likely because it exposed how the US debt is killing the poor.

ROFL.... Moron, you said that it had been "deleted." You really just can't bring yourself to admit it when you make a mistake, even a stupid mistake, can you?

[quote]Why she is so in love with the government is a mystery...

Why you continue to pretend that I'm "in love with the government" isn't even remotely a mystery, on the other hand, as it's the only way you can attack me, to make shit up and to attribute positions to me that I don't hold. Funny, though.

by Anonymousreply 5112/26/2012

Moron, why do you post these long rants that you don't understand and can't defend? There's so much in that post that's just stupid that it's not even worth the trouble to debunk. A few select examples:

[quote]Wealth and thus political power are highly concentrated.

Your solution, and his, would make things worse, not better.

[quote]The U.S. income tax is highly progressive

Uh-huh, and it always has been. In fact, it's been even more progressive in prior decades, during which the economy did just fine. Which means, of course, that whatever point he thought he was making is moot.

The rest of that paragraph is equally flawed, since the idiot very carefully didn't mention taxes other than income taxes or wealth other than income. Once you throw those other figures in, his point disappears, which is why he, dishonestly, chose to not include them.

[quote] Federal spending has followed an exponential trajectory.

No it hasn't. The idiot who wrote that blog post clearly doesn't have the foggiest idea what an "exponential trajectory" is.

[quote]Federal expenditures have skyrocketed in the past 12 years, far exceeding inflation

Yes, and there's a reason for that, which neither you nor that other moron bother to bring up. It's also the reason that the deficits are projected to fall again. And one of the reasons that that "127 million receiving handouts!!!!" is total crap. The other reason for that is that he's mixing apples and oranges (quite deliberately, I suspect).

There is a real discussion to be had regarding these points but starting that discussion with dishonesty and misdirection is not going to yield meaningful results.

by Anonymousreply 5212/26/2012

For every 10 private sector workers there are 9 government "workers" or recipients of government benefits. How long do you think that can last?

by Anonymousreply 5312/26/2012

[quote]For every 10 private sector workers there are 9 government "workers" or recipients of government benefits. How long do you think that can last?

ROFL.... You really don't know anything, do you? You simply trot out meaningless "facts" like this without ever bothering to wonder whether they make any sense at all! Do you even know how that site you're browsing defines "recipients of government benefits?" And do you even realize that the statistic is wholly irrelevant to this discussion?

by Anonymousreply 5412/26/2012

Why, R54?

If 127M get money from the government and 142M people are working, the stat is valid.

by Anonymousreply 5512/26/2012

[quote]If 127M get money from the government and 142M people are working, the stat is valid.

Sigh....

Even it's valid, which you haven't established, it's still meaningless. The way you phrased it in R55 is dumb, by the way, since many of those 127 million are, in fact, working. Secondly, the statistic, in and of itself, is entirely meaningless. It tells you nothing about whether the current situation is sustainable.

Additionally, I rather suspect that the website you pulled that number from is using such things as tax credits (e.g., the earned income credit, the child tax credit, etc.) as examples of people who are "recipients of government benefits."

In short, it's bullshit. Gee, what a surprise.

by Anonymousreply 5612/27/2012

R53, you DO realize that government workers pay taxes too, right?

by Anonymousreply 5712/27/2012

Just curious about the idea of one world currency. Would the US want that? Isn't the dollar tied to the purchase of oil around the globe? Seems like we would want to keep that control no?

by Anonymousreply 5812/27/2012

Yes, R57, but for the most part the produce nothing. At best they build shitty roads, build overpriced monuments or make life hell- the IRS, DMV, SS office...

by Anonymousreply 5912/28/2012

[quote]but for the most part the produce nothing.

Since that was irrelevant to R57's point, I'm not sure what you think you're establishing. Well, other than that you're a moron, but we already knew that.

by Anonymousreply 6012/28/2012

R60-

Name one thing the government produces...other than body counts of brown people.

by Anonymousreply 6112/30/2012

[quote]Name one thing the government produces...other than body counts of brown people.

ROFL.... You are nothing if not predictable. Thanks for the laugh, R61.

by Anonymousreply 6212/30/2012

R62- snide and content free replies just show how ignorant you really are.

You mock but provide no rebuttal. It's too sad to be funny. Name one thing the government produces...besides death.

by Anonymousreply 6312/30/2012

[quote]snide and content free replies just show how ignorant you really are.

ROFL.... Just following your sterling example, dear, since that describes your every post here. You *really* don't like your own tactics used against you, do you, dear?

[quote]You mock but provide no rebuttal.

I do when it's warranted, dear. In this case, I don't need to, since your post was fact-free and wholly unsupported.

[quote]It's too sad to be funny. Name one thing the government produces...besides death.

ROFLMAO.... See what I mean? Q.E.D. Personally, I find such ignorance hilarious, not sad.

by Anonymousreply 6412/30/2012

And yet R64 does not provide on example of anything the government actually produces.

by Anonymousreply 6512/30/2012

And yet R65 continues to demonstrate his total ignorance of everything the government provides.

by Anonymousreply 6612/30/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.