Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

The biggest problem I have, which I have continued to express comes from your entire use of this single piece of data.

This chart is obviously not a single piece of data. Rather, it is the product of extensive research into the wealth accumulation of the top 1% over the past 32 years, each year of which constitutes the results of many data points. You attempt to characterize it as a single data point is inaccurate and childish, and illustrates how little legitimate criticism you actually have of this study.

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

your claim that the 1% would use their wealth to sway the political process in their favor. If the wealthiest of the wealthy are going to do such a thing, then pointing out that those people are on your side of the aslie should be valid.

You are taking the political position of ten people as representing the political position of over a million people. That is not valid.

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

The shame of allowing people to invest some of their own SS money. Seeing as how I'm in my mid 40's, I know I'm not going to see any SS, why should I continue to pay into a system I will never benefit from?

Republicans in their 40s were proclaiming with certainty that they would never collect any money from Social Security. It is now 2017, and those Republicans are now collecting. Oddly, I don't hear any Republicans with the honesty to admit they were wrong back then, just as they are wrong now.

One thing is for sure, though. If Bush 43's program of allowing people to redirect their Social Security payments into private accounts had passed, then indeed Social Security would have gone under and they would not be collecting today. The Republicans have been trying to bring Social Security and Medicare down for 20 years by making the sort of statements you are making. The GOP will not be happy until the New Deal programs which brought widespread prosperity to America are gone.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Above, I wrote the following:

Quote:

Republicans in their 40s were proclaiming with certainty that they would never collect any money from Social Security. It is now 2017, and those Republicans are now collecting.

Please amend that to read,

Quote:

Republicans in their 40s during the 1990s were proclaiming with certainty that they would never collect any money from Social Security. It is now 2017, and those Republicans are now collecting.

Caught the error after the deadline for editing had passed.

1 Reply

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23621475_1859722577388499_6113894358852961160_n.png?oh=04922b3514bfe5747e3bb6d763e21bb8&oe=5AFE410D

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

This chart is obviously not a single piece of data. Rather, it is the product of extensive research into the wealth accumulation of the top 1% over the past 32 years, each year of which constitutes the results of many data points. You attempt to characterize it as a single data point is inaccurate and childish, and illustrates how little legitimate criticism you actually have of this study.

Did you read anything from the link I posted in my last reply? I'm willing to bet that you didn't. You ignored it in favor of this single chart.

Quote:

You are taking the political position of ten people as representing the political position of over a million people. That is not valid.

You only want to think it is 10 people, but I have mentioned several different groups that support the left-wing here with money and their personal time. Who in Hollywood or the entertainment world didn't support the DNC in the last several election cycles?

Quote:

Republicans in their 40s were proclaiming with certainty that they would never collect any money from Social Security. It is now 2017, and those Republicans are now collecting. Oddly, I don't hear any Republicans with the honesty to admit they were wrong back then, just as they are wrong now.

So you switch from talking about the 2000's to the 90's? I already provided a link to the state of SS and it looks to be a thing of the past when I'm old enough, the baby boomers are going to such it dry and payments will be a pittance. I guess you got yours though, so that's what counts... why do the old hate the young so much? It's actually both ways, the young don't care about the old except for their votes on SS and Medicare and the old only care about the young for the money they can poor into those systems.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/13/news/economy/social-security-trust-fund-projection/index.html

Quote:

One thing is for sure, though. If Bush 43's program of allowing people to redirect their Social Security payments into private accounts had passed, then indeed Social Security would have gone under and they would not be collecting today.

That isn't even close to the truth. The plan by the GOP in the 2000's wasn't going to let someone my age, I was in my late 20's early 30's at the time, and put all my SS payments into investment funds. That was never part of the plan, it was going to be a percentage of less than 50%. People who were at a certain age when it would have gone active, would not have seen a change to their own SS as it would have only been available to younger people who were further away from retirement age and had time to let the investments grow. Looking at how you think the rich get rich, why would the stock market be ok for them to gain wealth but not the rest of us? You want to talk about wealth inequality but you want to limit how people get their retirement income to a system that is almost 100 years old! Who's the conservative now?

Quote:

The Republicans have been trying to bring Social Security and Medicare down for 20 years by making the sort of statements you are making.

Which statements are those, please provide some proof.

Quote:

The GOP will not be happy until the New Deal programs which brought widespread prosperity to America are gone.

These systems from almost 100 years ago are not sufficient for our current economic system. 100 years ago we were mostly a farming and assembly line economy, that isn't the case any longer. You want to saddle the country with ancient programs designed for a different economy that doesn't even reflect our current economic times. The internet has been a boon for the economy and millions of people have taken advantage of it, it's the whole reason your entire argument falls apart and the reason you stick to a single chart as your "proof", it doesn't hold weight when leveled against the real world.

Try reading this and tell me what you think:
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america
If you think this is wrong, please tell me why.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

Did you read anything from the link I posted in my last reply? I'm willing to bet that you didn't. You ignored it in favor of this single chart.

Because the chart shows that if we keep going at the rate we've been for over a generation, the wealthiest 1% of the country will own 99% of the nation's wealth in 40 years. And you refuse to deal with the reality. You've embarrassed yourself by offering an "explanation" that there are more people in the top 1% than there used to be , (thereby ignoring the elementary fact that the 99% has increased an equal amount). You proclaim that the fault lies with the 99% who are losing out to the top 1%, so the 1% deserve to own it all. You make clear that you are perfectly happy with that.

This is where all your economic ideas lead, Baldimo. To the top 1% of the country owning 99% of the country's wealth, and you think if you bluster enough about how it's the fault of the 99%, people will buy into your mad scenario. Economically, conservatives have nothing to offer the country except a nightmare vision of the future, drummed into the heads of the faithful by the right wing media while the top 1% laughs their ass off at what they are getting away with.

Come into the light, Baldimo. The country was not started so the 1% can run the lives of the 99%. Wake up.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

You said absolutely nothing and you are just repeating yourself and the same single chart with no substance.

Did you read anything from the link or just ignore it?

Why don't you give me your answer instead of dodging like you have been for the last several posts.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

You've been dodging for the last several pages. You see the chart, you make some imbecilic comment a fourth grader would get flunked for, (like claiming there are more people at the same level of the 1% but they are not included in the 1%, ho ho ho), then you throw out some right wing shibboleth which has been proven wrong before, like asserting that Social Security won't be there for you in 20 years. Might I remind you that the right wingers were saying exactly the same thing in the 1990s, it was an article of faith on the Right that Social Security would not be there past 2010, and now those righties are all collecting it.

And of course, you are trying to say that it won't matter that 1% is going to own 99% of the wealth in a few years, since you think that they took advantage of a new industry, (like oil billionaires are not part of the 1%, lol), , so they deserve to own the whole damn country lock, stock, and barrel. When are you going to deal realistically with the dire implications outlined in that research, Baldimo? I'm not interested in reading some link you dredged up five minutes ago that you yourself haven't read. I've got the chart, I've got the facts, the whole country is going to be owned by 1% of the people and all you can do is bring up Hollywood wealthy who lean left as an answer. Now tell me what you think the country should do about the fact that wealth is getting so concentrated at the top that in forty years the top 1% of the country is going to own 99% of the wealth.

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

TheCobbler wrote:

Responsible hunting leads to the preservation of animal herds and boosts their numbers in the wild.

When weird anti-hunting zealots manage to abolish responsible hunting, the population of affected animals plummets and they become endangered.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

You've been dodging for the last several pages.

Wrong, I've answered, you refused to see my answer. What's been dodged, is your answer to your own question. I've asked several times.

Quote:

You see the chart, you make some imbecilic comment a fourth grader would get flunked for, (like claiming there are more people at the same level of the 1% but they are not included in the 1%, ho ho ho),

I deny the charts conclusions for the future. I simply disagree with you.

The last part makes no sense. I said the 1% in income earners were not equal to 1% of the total population.

Quote:

then you throw out some right wing shibboleth which has been proven wrong before, like asserting that Social Security won't be there for you in 20 years.

This only proves you didn't look at any of the links I posted, the info no SS running out comes from a 2015 report from the Social Security Admin. It won't be empty, but at that point it won't be able to make "full payments". Go a google search, don't take my word for it.

Quote:

Might I remind you that the right wingers were saying exactly the same thing in the 1990s, it was an article of faith on the Right that Social Security would not be there past 2010, and now those righties are all collecting it.

Were changes to SS made in the 90's? Was there something that was done by Congress and Clinton that might have pushed it out a decade or so? You know, pass the buck, as our govt is known to do.

Quote:

And of course, you are trying to say that it won't matter that 1% is going to own 99% of the wealth in a few years, since you think that they took advantage of a new industry, (like oil billionaires are not part of the 1%, lol),

It won't matter because that isn't going to happen. The economy isn't static and there will always be now sources of income. Sure the oil people are part of the 1%, the income level for the 1% starts at $450,000 and goes up to billionaires.

Quote:

When are you going to deal realistically with the dire implications outlined in that research, Baldimo?

What research? You've only posted that single chart with no other information or facts, just your stupid mantra.

Quote:

I'm not interested in reading some link you dredged up five minutes ago that you yourself haven't read.

Oh, I did indeed read it. I'm not surprised you didn't though, it's not your style to read something that might disagree with you and be able to prove it. Keep your head in the sand.

Quote:

I've got the chart, I've got the facts, the whole country is going to be owned by 1% of the people and all you can do is bring up Hollywood wealthy who lean left as an answer. Now tell me what you think the country should do about the fact that wealth is getting so concentrated at the top that in forty years the top 1% of the country is going to own 99% of the wealth.

You have no facts, you have a chart. The rest of what you post is BS and can't be proven.

You can either provide some sort of answer to the "problem" as you see it or just stop replying. If you don't have an answer, then you are just bitching for no reason.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

You have no facts, you have a chart.

And that chart is a survey of the never-ending concentration of wealth in the US among fewer and fewer hands. It is the end result of painstaking research which took years, and it leads to one inescapable conclusion: In forty years, 99% of wealth in the entire US will be owned by the top 1% of the people.

America became great because when the wealthy built their fortunes, enough money passed down to the middle class and lower class so that each generation was moving ahead of the one before. That has not been going on for quite awhile now, most of the middle class is moving sideways, not ahead. The concentration of wealth has gotten so bad that the top 10%-which is a comfortably wealthy group-have LOST wealth share since 1980. Why? For the same reason the 50 percentile and 75 percentile is losing wealth share-the top 1 percentile is taking it ALL. ALL of it, Baldimo, it's all going to the top 1%.

In forty years, they'll have 99% of the wealth in the whole country, and the rest of country will be servants to their masters in the top 1%. And you? You will applaud it, because you think that the rich deserve it all. Because they're rich. Meanwhile, if you're still around you'll be posting away on message boards that we have to get rid of all the socialistic remnants like Social Security because only the wealthy who properly prepared for retirement have the right to a retirement that doesn't involve moving into a cardboard box on the sidewalk.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

You still haven't provided an solution.

0 Replies

Farmers Now Regret Voting For Trump, Since He’s About To DEVASTATE Their Livelihood
https://www.truthexam.com/2017/12/farmers-now-regret-voting-trump-since-hes-devastate-livelihood/

0 Replies

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26055572_207573076468864_6429485020099984163_n.jpg?oh=2d2b4884ece93d2704741511aee27e36&oe=5AC573EB

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Republicans in their 40s during the 1990s were proclaiming with certainty that they would never collect any money from Social Security. It is now 2017, and those Republicans are now collecting.

True which is why they usually have some kind of later date in which such bills are to go into effect. Then they can say, "it will not effect today's seniors." As though tomorrows seniors are less deserving.

0 Replies

Shaun King to His Fellow Progressives: Stop With the "Both Parties are the Same" Bullsh*t
https://thedailybanter.com/2017/12/shaun-king-stop-the-purity-politics/

0 Replies

Trump Golf Resorts Drop 500% Below National Average as Trump brands plummet
https://www.truesharedaily.com/trump-golf-course-huge-failure/

Comment:
What? There are not enough rich pedophiles in red states who also play golf?

0 Replies

Ruth Bader Ginsburg shuts down Gorsuch's extremist mansplaining with one sentence
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/4/1704061/-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-shuts-down-Gorsuch-s-extremist-mansplaining-with-one-sentence

https://images.dailykos.com/images/272563/story_image/GettyImages-466730764.jpg?1468252129

2 Replies

@TheCobbler,

Guess that illustrates the difference between knowledge and rhetoric. I wish she was younger by at least twenty years. It's going to be bad when she leaves.

1 Reply

Suspicious Timeline Suggests GOP Blocking Merrick Garland May Be Tied to Trump/Russia Scandal
http://www.bluedotdaily.com/suspicious-timeline-suggests-gop-blocking-merrick-garland-may-be-tied-to-trump-russia-scandal

0 Replies

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25498012_2025733927703197_8732300067854602874_n.jpg?oh=ec498cd486e56e695796835805a421bf&oe=5AF9533F

Our own Susan Collins of Maine will be remembered as the greedy Maine senator who "cashed out" when the going got tough.

0 Replies

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know