McCain is the R's best choice.

Darla said:
Don't be hating on Onceler just because he is smart and funny SF.
Click to expand...

How am I "hating" on him? By correcting him? Please, do the math... show me how I am wrong.

There are two ways to "close the income gap". One is for the lower/middle classes to have HIGHER percentage gains than the wealthy. The other is for the upper class to have HIGHER percentage losses than the lower/middle classes.

Obviously no one benefits if everyone sees a decrease. To promote the other option... that the lower/middle income groups deserve higher percentage gains than the upper income is CLASS WARFARE. It is pitting the classes against each other and comparing their percentage gains.

If everyones income went up 10%....is that not good?
 
"Now, please note I said typically above. When you have a percentage increase in income for the wealthy that is GREATER than the percentage increase for the lower/middle class, THEN you have a valid argument that the wealthy are taking advantage. There are certainly cases where this exists. Just ask trial lawyers like John Edwards to compare his income to that of his legal assistant(s) over the years."

Also, please explain why Edwards doesn't address situations like the above.... or are his legal assistants also in 26,000 square foot mansions?
 
Superfreak said:
1) I have no clue as to how his kids are voting.

2) As for the rest, for the most part I agree. He is not the ideal candidate for the Reps. But he is the best of the bunch.... for as much as that is worth. Romney blew his chance. Rudy will remain quiet until Florida. Then we shall see what support he has. McCain will do well in NH, struggle in S Carolina, then we will see just how much support and momentum he truly has.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with you here.
 
Superfreak said:
How am I "hating" on him? By correcting him? Please, do the math... show me how I am wrong.

There are two ways to "close the income gap". One is for the lower/middle classes to have HIGHER percentage gains than the wealthy. The other is for the upper class to have HIGHER percentage losses than the lower/middle classes.

Obviously no one benefits if everyone sees a decrease. To promote the other option... that the lower/middle income groups deserve higher percentage gains than the upper income is CLASS WARFARE. It is pitting the classes against each other and comparing their percentage gains.

If everyones income went up 10%....is that not good?
Click to expand...


Everyone's income has not gone up 10%, real wages have stagnated for the middle and lower classes, and increases in fuel and food prices disproportionately affects them as well.

There has not been this large of a gap between the rich and everyone else since the Gilded age, according to ecnomists I have read. Pretend all you want that it doesn't matter, but that's not how the middle class was built in this country and it's not how the middle class will be mantained.
 
"If everyones income went up 10%....is that not good?"

This reasoning - and that employed on your other responses - is simplistic & flawed. It doesn't factor in cost of living, one iota.

If middle class wages are going up, but costs of college, healthcare & energy are going up more, how is the middle class keeping up? The plain facts of this are that the rich are getting MUCH richer, and the middle class is falling further & further behind. Credit debt is at record levels, and many American families now have both parents working, sometimes multiple jobs, just to keep from falling too deep into debt.

The average American working family cannot keep up with the skyrocketing cost of college, housing, healthcare & energy. They are falling behind, and the gap between rich & poor is increasing at an exponential rate.
 
Superfreak said:
"Now, please note I said typically above. When you have a percentage increase in income for the wealthy that is GREATER than the percentage increase for the lower/middle class, THEN you have a valid argument that the wealthy are taking advantage. There are certainly cases where this exists. Just ask trial lawyers like John Edwards to compare his income to that of his legal assistant(s) over the years."

Also, please explain why Edwards doesn't address situations like the above.... or are his legal assistants also in 26,000 square foot mansions?
Click to expand...


"When you have a percentage increase in income for the wealthy that is GREATER than the percentage increase for the lower/middle class, THEN you have a valid argument that the wealthy are taking advantage"

Here you go

Here’s what the numbers say about percentage gains in after-tax income from 2003 to 2005:

Bottom quintile: 2%
Next quintile: 2.4%
Middle quintile: 3.9%
Fourth quintile: 3.7%
Top quintile: 16%

Top 10%: 20.9%
Top 5%: 27.7%
Top 1%: 43.5%

It was a boom, all right — but only for a few people.


http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=177652&postcount=1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Everyone's income has not gone up 10%, real wages have stagnated for the middle and lower classes, and increases in fuel and food prices disproportionately affects them as well.

There has not been this large of a gap between the rich and everyone else since the Gilded age, according to ecnomists I have read. Pretend all you want that it doesn't matter, but that's not how the middle class was built in this country and it's not how the middle class will be mantained.
Click to expand...

1) AGAIN, read what I wrote. I said that if there is a disparity in percentage gains, then that is a valid argument. However, looking at the "income gap" in terms of dollars is silly, because it does not show that to you. I have yet to see a study on the income gap that wasn't purely dollar based rather than showing the percentage increases.

2) Yes, increases in basic commodities effects the lower and middle class more in terms of perntages of income. That has nothing to do with the class warfare bullshit of saying the rich should pay more than their fair share.

3) There is no "pretending" on my part. One of us understands the basic math behind the income gap. The other wants to continue to spout off the class warfare propaganda being spoon fed to her by idiots like Edwards.

NOTHING changes the fact that there are only two ways to close the income gap. They are the ways I mentioned. Something you continue to pretend not to notice.
 
Superfreak said:
1) AGAIN, read what I wrote. I said that if there is a disparity in percentage gains, then that is a valid argument. However, looking at the "income gap" in terms of dollars is silly, because it does not show that to you. I have yet to see a study on the income gap that wasn't purely dollar based rather than showing the percentage increases.

2) Yes, increases in basic commodities effects the lower and middle class more in terms of perntages of income. That has nothing to do with the class warfare bullshit of saying the rich should pay more than their fair share.

3) There is no "pretending" on my part. One of us understands the basic math behind the income gap. The other wants to continue to spout off the class warfare propaganda being spoon fed to her by idiots like Edwards.

NOTHING changes the fact that there are only two ways to close the income gap. They are the ways I mentioned. Something you continue to pretend not to notice.
Click to expand...

No I'm not pretending anything SF. We live in a country that has been taken over and is now run by corporations. Everything is being geared towards the corporations and the super-rich. I grew up in a pretty affluent neighborhood and no one i know from childhood, is doing as good as our parents did. That's the opposite of the American dream and it didn't happen by accident.

The truth is, class warfare has been waged since the reagan revolution. They've been winning. I think Obama is just another corporate candidate and it's why i support Edwards. But...I am around a lot of racists, and due to recent personal experiences with them, I've realized I can't not vote for the first black President. I get the magic of it. I understnad what it means, but also, what it does not mean. I'll vote for him, but I also don't believe that economically, he means that big of a change. Though of course, he's going to be better than the bushies. I mean he wouldn't veto the Schip bill, but guess what? Neither would Hillary.

It's Edwards who could have been our most progressive president since FDR. Of course, he coudl be full of shit and Obama could end up being far more progressive than he has let on in the general, you know? I keep my fingers crossed, you never really know. Look at what compassionate conservatism meant, after all. How many people knew it was code for getting it in the butt?
 
Onceler said:
"If everyones income went up 10%....is that not good?"

This reasoning - and that employed on your other responses - is simplistic & flawed. It doesn't factor in cost of living, one iota.

If middle class wages are going up, but costs of college, healthcare & energy are going up more, how is the middle class keeping up? The plain facts of this are that the rich are getting MUCH richer, and the middle class is falling further & further behind. Credit debt is at record levels, and many American families now have both parents working, sometimes multiple jobs, just to keep from falling too deep into debt.

The average American working family cannot keep up with the skyrocketing cost of college, housing, healthcare & energy. They are falling behind, and the gap between rich & poor is increasing at an exponential rate.
Click to expand...

1) Yes, cost of living increases take up a greater percentage of income for lower and middle class families. That does not change the fact that saying we must close the income gap is class warfare. You are saying that because the middle and lower income families are being hit harder by rising healthcare/college/etc... expenses that the wealthy should earn a lower percentage than the lower/middle class to make up for it. That is not necessarily an unjust position, but it most certainly is class warfare. You are saying that the wealthy should pay for more of others debt etc....

2) You are completely discounting the fact that many Americans deliberately live beyond their means. How many bought that new car, bigger home etc... when they could not afford it? Many are feeling the pinch due to their own stupidity.

3) As for rising costs in healthcare, education, energy etc... yes, these are problems that hurt the lower income and middle income families. Taxing the rich more or redistributing wealth does NOTHING to solve these problems. NOTHING.

For number three, we need to address WHY these costs are rising so much faster than core inflation. WHY is education going up so much? WHAT can we do to stop the ever increasing cyclical nature of healthcare costs? What are our best bets in terms of investing in Alt energy?

hint on the last one.... grain based ethanol is a HUGE mistake. it costs more to produce than gas AND it causes the price of grains to rise... which HURTS the lower and middle income families. At a time when grain prices are already under pressure from increases in meat consumption, it is ridiculous for the world to be putting grain in their cars.
 
Battleborne said:
What has Obama said anyhoo...other than cheerleader rants...general symantics...the guy has not defined who or what he really stands for other than smiling,hugging,and of course the canned cheers!
Click to expand...

He has ran a six letter campaign, C H A N G E, event over, go home. Bells whistles, horns...
 
Superfreak said:
I would agree that with regards to bringing this country back together he is far better than either of the Bushs or Bill Clinton and better than most other candidates in either party. McCain would be the only one close out of the current crop.

But I would bet you were alive during Reagan's terms. While those on the far left seem to despise him, he won in two landslides. He helped bring this country together again. While he and Tip went toe to toe on a variety of issues, the two almost always remained cordial and willing to work with the other side. Obama could be the liberal version of Reagan. Different political goals, but willing to work with the other side for the benefit of the country.
Click to expand...

I think McCain has a proven record of being able to do this, he even has a Democratic endorsement, he has a proven record of working with the Democratic leaders. I just personally think, it's one thing to hope for something, it's another to actually do it, and McCain's done quite a bit.
 
this is really funny shit and dems need to brush up on this or lose.
Attacking the rich will not win you the WH.
I'm left of all you crybaby liberals on everything but economics. Crying about milions and millions of americans doing excessively well has a smell (rank).
It's easy to move from poor to rich, immagrants do it all the time. The crybaby liberal would have you think your required to go into huge debt and live beyond your means cause the jones have X.
Hopefully the dem nominee will be smarter than Darla on oncelor.:clink:
 
Topspin said:
this is really funny shit and dems need to brush up on this or lose.
Attacking the rich will not win you the WH.
I'm left of all you crybaby liberals on everything but economics. Crying about milions and millions of americans doing excessively well has a smell (rank).
It's easy to move from poor to rich, immagrants do it all the time. The crybaby liberal would have you think your required to go into huge debt and live beyond your means cause the jones have X.
Hopefully the dem nominee will be smarter than Darla on oncelor.:clink:
Click to expand...

This whole economy is a big lie. It's based on debt spending. That's a big problem. It's a house of cards, fool.
 
Topspin said:
this is really funny shit and dems need to brush up on this or lose.
Attacking the rich will not win you the WH.
I'm left of all you crybaby liberals on everything but economics. Crying about milions and millions of americans doing excessively well has a smell (rank).
It's easy to move from poor to rich, immagrants do it all the time. The crybaby liberal would have you think your required to go into huge debt and live beyond your means cause the jones have X.
Hopefully the dem nominee will be smarter than Darla on oncelor.:clink:
Click to expand...

:clink:

Right on Toppy.

Top, can you elaborate on one of these positions that you are left of the Dems on?
Click to expand...

RS. Toppy is a libtard when it comes to gun control for one, healthcare 2, AA 3, and a few others. He's pretty far left. But he's right on about most econ issues.

His message is simple. Work hard and live well. Make the right choices and life is easier. And Women under 65 pounds are hot.

Also, on enviornmental issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top