Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   The income gap between poor and rich in the United States has grown more dramatically under President Obama than Bush or Clinton. This guy is a lousy socialist   (news.investors.com) divider line 341
    More: Interesting, President Obama, United States, income inequality, Emmanuel Saez, wealth redistribution, socialists  
•       •       •

1156 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-31 11:16:54 AM  
So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?
 
2013-07-31 11:16:59 AM  
It's almost as if a decades-long trend didn't stop when Obama came to office.

I bet his push to raise the minimum wage is just some underhanded trick to make the rich richer.
 
2013-07-31 11:30:01 AM  
A rat done but my sister Nell
and Obama's in the White House
 
2013-07-31 11:37:19 AM  
You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."
 
2013-07-31 11:37:28 AM  
We should kill them all and take their things.
 
2013-07-31 11:38:19 AM  
And this surprised who, exactly?
Obama is no friend of the American people. But he loves his banker and hedge and Fed buddies.

If it's not illegal, it's OK.
Never forget that.
 
2013-07-31 11:39:01 AM  
Weird, I was led to believe he was the lib'rullest lib'rul to ever lib'rul a lib'rul. It's as if it were never true, and the people saying that were being disingenuous in the hopes that I'd be naïve enough to follow their line of thinking afterward, with no questions asked.
 
2013-07-31 11:39:01 AM  
It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.
 
2013-07-31 11:39:26 AM  
And yet the poor in the United States still own smart phones and get free food/housing. The truly impoverished in the States are so far below the poverty line that they could reasonably be removed from these studies as statistical outliers.
 
2013-07-31 11:39:59 AM  
False flag operation.  He'll sit in the white house for 7½ years letting the rich get richer then when everyone thinks he is no longer a problem, BAM Marxist, Maoist paradise!
 
2013-07-31 11:40:01 AM  

DarwiOdrade: So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?


Best Republican president since Eisenhower.
 
2013-07-31 11:40:36 AM  
Gee, ya don't think it might have something to do with the fact that Obama hasn't changed ANY tax laws, except for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire six months ago?

Who'd have thought...?
 
2013-07-31 11:41:31 AM  
It's a big ship that takes time to turn. It's going to take more than a small increase in the upper tax rate to bring her around.
 
2013-07-31 11:42:49 AM  

Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.


So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!


Wait....
 
2013-07-31 11:44:36 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's a big ship that takes time to turn. It's going to take more than a small increase in the upper tax rate to bring her around.


We should elect him again.
 
2013-07-31 11:44:53 AM  

AngryDragon: Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.

So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!



That's a start, but we also need to defund planned parenthood so more people can be jerb creators.
 
2013-07-31 11:45:47 AM  
And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.
 
2013-07-31 11:46:20 AM  

Headso: AngryDragon: Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.

So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!


That's a start, but we also need to defund planned parenthood so more people can be jerb creators.


NPR, NEA, PBS, EPA - there are literally quadrillions of agencies that have been living high on the hog for years under Maobama Fartqueeferstain.
 
2013-07-31 11:46:50 AM  

netweavr: And yet the poor in the United States still own smart phones and get free food/housing. The truly impoverished in the States are so far below the poverty line that they could reasonably be removed from these studies as statistical outliers.


They also have refrigerators. Truly it's awesome to be poor.
 
2013-07-31 11:47:31 AM  

AngryDragon: Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.

So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!


Wait....


I wish people, Obama included, would realize that this song and dance about "lowering corporate tax rates to create jobs" is the same basic principle as paying a contractor BEFORE they actually do the work. Only stupid people do that.

Wait...
 
2013-07-31 11:47:42 AM  
Well there is a wacky theory that the government in the US is solidly right wing and any social spending is calculated to be just enough so that people don't riot. Of course there is not universal agreement - the most right wing of lawmakers *want* people to riot.
 
2013-07-31 11:47:52 AM  

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


Obama is a progressive?
 
2013-07-31 11:48:29 AM  

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there


Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.
 
2013-07-31 11:48:30 AM  

Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?


Only the progressivest progressive to ever progressive a progressive!
 
2013-07-31 11:49:09 AM  

I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.


I'm hoping for someone to his left.
 
2013-07-31 11:49:12 AM  

Headso: AngryDragon: Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.

So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!


That's a start, but we also need to defund planned parenthood so more people can be jerb creators.


And public television.
 
2013-07-31 11:49:17 AM  

Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?


Progressively right-wing maybe.
 
2013-07-31 11:50:39 AM  
"income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.
 
2013-07-31 11:51:16 AM  
*sigh*
 
2013-07-31 11:51:16 AM  

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


0.0000000000000000000000001/10
 
2013-07-31 11:52:16 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there

Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.


Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.
 
2013-07-31 11:52:31 AM  
Well now that this thread has been polluted all to hell, would it look weird if I started eating my lunch 10 minutes early?  Cause I'm starving over here.
 
2013-07-31 11:52:39 AM  
Thanks Obama

This is not the change we were hoping for.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:05 AM  

coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10


Outstanding rebuttal.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:20 AM  
Since IBD is reporting this, I assume the gap is closing, the United States has ceased to be a real place, and Sarah Palin is president of Alaskastan.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:25 AM  
The president has been decrying the growing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. to help sell his retread tax-and-spend proposals. But those policies have already produced record levels of income inequality.

Yeah, sure, it's all those "tax-and-spend" proposals* -- that produced inequality, not the refusal of the Republican-led Congress to pass any real jobs bills or their attempt to hold the economy hostage with their debt ceiling standoff.

* what taxes?
 
2013-07-31 11:53:32 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama

This is not the change we were hoping for.


Nope, the change you were hoping for was a return to Jim Crow and lynchings.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:37 AM  
Once you free-month-subscribe to Investors News, getting off their list (or stopping papers from coming) is like trying to remove sick dog poop from your shoe -- it never quite goes away -- then you get it on your hand, your hair, your teeth and your keyboard.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:46 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Dusk-You-n-Me: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there

Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.

Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.


He convinced them by not campaigning as a progressive. Sounds legit.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:54 AM  

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there...


What the hell are you talking about?

How the hell do progressives "have their guy in there"?
 
2013-07-31 11:54:31 AM  

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


I read your post, and then yawned.

This means things!
 
2013-07-31 11:55:44 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.


People to the left of Obama voting for Obama isn't really news. It may or may not surprise you that some of Obama's fiercest critics are those to his left.
 
2013-07-31 11:56:01 AM  

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


imageshack.us
 
2013-07-31 11:57:10 AM  

eraser8: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there...

What the hell are you talking about?

How the hell do progressives "have their guy in there"?


Maybe he only listens to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, if that was the case you would believe what he wrote...
 
2013-07-31 11:57:14 AM  

eraser8: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there...

What the hell are you talking about?

How the hell do progressives "have their guy in there"?


Appatently running as a centrist moderate is progressive. This is what the Tea Tards actually believe.
 
2013-07-31 11:59:26 AM  

Aristocles: coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10

Outstanding rebuttal.


Exactly what am I rebutting? You are a troll and have admitted to being one so why should I give you anything but a score for your efforts?
 
2013-07-31 12:00:12 PM  
I honestly think the GOP's throwing all sorts of shiat in Obama's presidency just so they can say in 2016 "Well, Dubya wasn't that bad!".
 
2013-07-31 12:00:41 PM  

Fart_Machine: eraser8: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there...

What the hell are you talking about?

How the hell do progressives "have their guy in there"?

Appatently running as a centrist moderate is progressive. This is what the Tea Tards actually believe.


If he wasn't a real progressive, libtards would have a way of shutting it down.

/Awesome opposition party, there, Republicans.
 
2013-07-31 12:00:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It may or may not surprise you that some of Obama's fiercest critics are those to his left.


Yeah, real liberals. People that have the balls to both call themselves and promote liberal ideals. Progressives are nothing more than scared school children who no longer want to be called liberal because being a proud liberal became too hard.
 
2013-07-31 12:01:25 PM  

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.



Outstanding question-begging.
 
2013-07-31 12:01:32 PM  

EyeballKid: Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?

Only the progressivest progressive to ever progressive a progressive!


You guys are wasting your breath trying to debate with people who are convinced that George W Bush wasn't a real conservative.
 
2013-07-31 12:02:23 PM  

ozone: DarwiOdrade: So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?

Best Republican president since Eisenhower.

CLINTON.

FTFY
 
2013-07-31 12:02:23 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


...and, fade to black. Finis.
 
2013-07-31 12:03:12 PM  
hope and change... "I hope they dont notice i didn't change anything."
 
2013-07-31 12:03:27 PM  
How conservatives view the political spectrum:
www.americanthinker.com

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
abearsrant.com
 
2013-07-31 12:03:41 PM  

Parthenogenetic: You guys are wasting your breath trying to debate with people who are convinced that George W Bush wasn't a real conservative.


Bush was a coward who did whatever Cheney wanted.
 
2013-07-31 12:03:53 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Since IBD is reporting this, I assume the gap is closing, the United States has ceased to be a real place, and Sarah Palin is president of Alaskastan.


Ahhh, IBD. :-)
 
2013-07-31 12:03:57 PM  

coeyagi: Aristocles: coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10

Outstanding rebuttal.

Exactly what am I rebutting? You are a troll and have admitted to being one so why should I give you anything but a score for your efforts?


You don't need to anything. If you have trouble following my absolutely correct framing of this commonly-misunderstood-by-libs non-problem, I'd be happy to help. Just ask, there's no shame in it.
 
2013-07-31 12:04:10 PM  
That's because the U.S. has been moving towards fascism and not socialism
 
2013-07-31 12:04:17 PM  

Outrageous Muff: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama

This is not the change we were hoping for.

Nope, the change you were hoping for was a return to Jim Crow and lynchings.


Hey, give the guy a break. He doesn't want that for real Americans... only for undocumented immigrants.
 
2013-07-31 12:05:05 PM  
i wonder how difficult it is for Republicans to pretend to care about the poors. Like, does it give them an eye twitch?
 
2013-07-31 12:06:08 PM  

someonelse: i wonder how difficult it is for Republicans to pretend to care about the poors. Like, does it give them an eye twitch?


If they didn't care about the poors, who would they exploit?
 
2013-07-31 12:06:38 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


How easily he got those ACA repeals through his Congress.
 
2013-07-31 12:06:40 PM  

Aristocles: You don't need to anything. If you have trouble following my absolutely correct framing of this commonly-misunderstood-by-libs non-problem, I'd be happy to help. Just ask, there's no shame in it.


You should do standup. Then you could see the looks on the audience members' faces while you bomb.
 
2013-07-31 12:07:05 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: I honestly think the GOP's throwing all sorts of shiat in Obama's presidency just so they can say in 2016 "Well, Dubya wasn't that bad!".


I guarantee you that in 2016, the GOP will argue that the Democratic nominee is "the most liberal candidate ever.  S/he is even less qualified and more evil than Obama."

This is what they're forced to do.  They've done it for every Democrat since Walter Mondale.  It has nothing to do with who the nominee is or what he or she actually believes.  It has to do with promoting fear.

It just won't do to tell people, "the Democrats picked someone who really isn't that bad.  I mean, c'mon, he's not nearly as bad as Obama."  That argument won't scare people into voting reflexively and thoughtlessly for the Republican nominee.
 
2013-07-31 12:07:08 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Yeah, real liberals. People that have the balls to both call themselves and promote liberal ideals. Progressives are nothing more than scared school children who no longer want to be called liberal because being a proud liberal became too hard.


Maybe decaf tomorrow.
 
2013-07-31 12:08:31 PM  

DarwiOdrade: How everyone else views the political spectrum:


I think you can tack on another blank space to the left of the Democrats.
 
2013-07-31 12:12:53 PM  
Obama: Trickle up works!
 
2013-07-31 12:13:20 PM  

coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10


You are far too generous
 
2013-07-31 12:13:29 PM  

someonelse: i wonder how difficult it is for Republicans to pretend to care about the poors. Like, does it give them an eye twitch?


At first, but their access to superior healthcare includes a therapeutic poor person they can practice pretending to care about.
 
2013-07-31 12:14:31 PM  

Mrbogey: Obama: Trickle up works!


wat
 
2013-07-31 12:14:55 PM  
I'm shocked that capitalist policies help capitalists.  I'm absolutely shocked!
 
2013-07-31 12:16:22 PM  
In typical hamhanded Republican fashion, the term "progressive" has become yet another all-purpose pejorative, just like "Socialist", "Marxist" and "Communist".

Most base level Republicans have no idea what these terms actually mean, nor can they define them articulately without using Google. They're nothing more than "scary sounding words" they use to appear knowledgeable when in reality they might as well call Obama a "poopyhead" for all the thought behind the use of those terms.

He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.
 
2013-07-31 12:17:05 PM  

Aristocles: coeyagi: Aristocles: coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10

Outstanding rebuttal.

Exactly what am I rebutting? You are a troll and have admitted to being one so why should I give you anything but a score for your efforts?

You don't need to anything. If you have trouble following my absolutely correct framing of this commonly-misunderstood-by-libs non-problem, I'd be happy to help. Just ask, there's no shame in it.


Correct framing? Prove that the poor are better off. Or just derp some more, I could care less, baby ALT who collects tolls at bridges.
 
2013-07-31 12:17:54 PM  
IT IS THE OBAMA-REID-BOEHNER CABAL

~fartz~
 
2013-07-31 12:18:12 PM  

Mrbogey: ObamaMoody's: Trickle up works!


www.foreffectivegov.org
 
2013-07-31 12:18:16 PM  
Romney would have doubled that.
 
2013-07-31 12:19:09 PM  

coeyagi: Correct framing? Prove that the poor are better off. Or just derp some more, I could care less, baby ALT who collects tolls at bridges.


OMFG would you please just put him on ignore?
 
2013-07-31 12:19:10 PM  
The income gap has grown at a faster rate in the wake of an economic collapse that corporate America used as an excuse to horde capital and even further stagnate the wages of the plebs who they keep in constant fear of losing their jobs?

The hell you say!

Any minute now the Marxist in Chief will do something about it.
 
2013-07-31 12:19:39 PM  

LarryDan43: Romney would have doubled that.


So why elect the lesser evil?
 
2013-07-31 12:20:33 PM  
If the poor want to get rich, why don't they just get an MBA from an exclusive/Ivy League university and/or get a math/physics ph.d from an exclusive university?

It's almost as if rich people become rich by being smarter and more industrious than everybody else.
 
2013-07-31 12:20:49 PM  

phaseolus: Outstanding question-begging.


99% of them have refrigerators.  That's far better off than the poor in the Roman Empire.  QED.
 
2013-07-31 12:21:45 PM  

The Drawing Board: The income gap has grown at a faster rate in the wake of an economic collapse that corporate America used as an excuse to horde capital and even further stagnate the wages of the plebs who they keep in constant fear of losing their jobs?

The hell you say!

Any minute now the Marxist in Chief will do something about it.


So, when corporations and rich horde money, it hurts the economy.  But if they spent it, wouldn't that be trickle down?
 
2013-07-31 12:21:55 PM  

zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.


Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.
 
2013-07-31 12:22:40 PM  

I_C_Weener: LarryDan43: Romney would have doubled that.

So why elect the lesser evil?


I wanted the more evil. I'm rich. The class war is almost complete!
 
2013-07-31 12:25:19 PM  

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.


Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?
 
2013-07-31 12:25:54 PM  

stamped human bacon: I think you can tack on another blank space to the left of the Democrats.


Just move the one in between the Democrats and the Republicans.  You don't a need a party between conservative and derp.
 
2013-07-31 12:26:10 PM  
so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)
 
2013-07-31 12:26:19 PM  

zappaisfrank: Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.

Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?


Heh, when "liberal" and "progressive" just aren't strong enough pejoratives...
 
2013-07-31 12:26:29 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: And this surprised who, exactly?
Obama is no friend of the American people. But he loves his banker and hedge and Fed buddies.

If it's not illegal, it's OK.
Never forget that.


So vote for Romney!
 
2013-07-31 12:27:06 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.


Zombie Reagan?
 
2013-07-31 12:29:16 PM  

coeyagi: Prove that the poor are better off.


THEY HAVE REFRIGERATORS!!1!

...what more proof do you need, lib-u-lardo?
 
2013-07-31 12:30:39 PM  

FlashHarry: so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)


See how hilariously inept he is?

...except when he is single-handedly unraveling more than two centuries of American Libertyfreedoms.
 
2013-07-31 12:30:57 PM  
This guy is a lousy. socialist

FTFY, subby.  Capitalists don't want to claim him either.
 
2013-07-31 12:31:08 PM  

netweavr: And yet the poor in the United States still own smart phones and get free food/housing. The truly impoverished in the States are so far below the poverty line that they could reasonably be removed from these studies as statistical outliers.


And refrigerators.  Don't forget refrigerators.
 
2013-07-31 12:33:33 PM  
Also, in a more serious sense - the government has grand control over my civil liberties/rights. Obama, through universal healthcare and support of gay marriage, has pushed us farther in the direction of a decent society. I do believe, even if his healthcare plan flops, people will look on him in 60 years and say that he laid the foundation for some progressive movement.

Assuming we don't all turn to cannibalism and rioting in the meantime.

I would love to see some more fiscal conservancy and economic controls put into place, but neither party actually does that, and the only party that talk about it, also wants to set gays on fire and roast s'mores over their carcasses. Thanks, but I'll take Obama's America over the other options.
 
2013-07-31 12:34:53 PM  

Aristocles: coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10

Outstanding rebuttal.


Look, Skippy, you've way over-played this troll account.  I suggest letting this account sit unused for a few years, then maybe try again.

Cheers.
 
2013-07-31 12:35:36 PM  
Note for anybody with math (maths for british farkers), DUH
For all those who missed/slept through/never understood calculus:
If the increase in peoples income is proportional (or an increasing proportion for the wealthy), you get an exponential function.  This isn't in question, it is how the exponential function is literally defined (actually a strict proportion, in reality the rich get higher increases so a function steeper than an exponential).

Basically, barring a sufficient political revolution that sees the US going back to progressive taxes or real wages for wage slaves, all the money will eventually concentrate in just a few families (.01% works out to roughly 100 families).  The first 10 years of Reagan "conservatism" made the 10%, the next will make the 1% extremely rich, the next 10 years will make the .1% own nearly all the country and so on..).  Also note that exponential functions mean that of the 1%'s famous wealth, the .01% already own the same ratio of all that wealth that the 1% have of the total US wealth.  Its just going to skew even harder to the right, so while the "1%" will have even more of the wealth, if you aren't the "1% of the 1%" you won't see much of it.

/never mind what Marx had to say, check out what Adam Smith had to say about crony capitalism.
 
2013-07-31 12:35:41 PM  

Utter Genius: If the poor want to get rich, why don't they just get an MBA from an exclusive/Ivy League university and/or get a math/physics ph.d from an exclusive university?


And then have daddy get them a job with one of his friends companies when they graduate.
 
2013-07-31 12:35:47 PM  
Its almost as if the power to make law is vested in another branch of government.  A branch that has shown its inability and unwillingness to actually do anything . . .
 
2013-07-31 12:36:33 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.


We should.  Let's start with Rupert Murdock and the Kochs.
 
2013-07-31 12:36:33 PM  
Remember when talking about income inequality was class warfare?
 
2013-07-31 12:37:34 PM  

FlashHarry: so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)


If you look closely you will see he is black and so it really does not matter what side he supports, he is wrong.
 
2013-07-31 12:38:29 PM  

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


You should take some steroids while you poop.

Because your shiat's WEAK, SON!
 
2013-07-31 12:39:39 PM  
To all who are calling for higher taxes on the rich do you realize that will do nothing in regards to income inequity?

If the CEO make 10 million and the janitor make 16k it does not matter what rate you tax the CEO he still makes 10 million.
 
2013-07-31 12:40:08 PM  

AeAe: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.

We should.  Let's start with Rupert Murdock and the Kochs.


That is the worst band name I have ever heard.
 
2013-07-31 12:40:48 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.


Elizabeth Warren
 
2013-07-31 12:41:05 PM  
Don't hate the playa, Farklibs, hate the game.
 
2013-07-31 12:41:23 PM  

Triple Oak: AeAe: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.

We should.  Let's start with Rupert Murdock and the Kochs.

That is the worst band name I have ever heard.


Oh, and the Waltons.
 
2013-07-31 12:41:52 PM  
The answer to my question has been revealed: what would it have been like if Carter got a second term?
 
2013-07-31 12:42:29 PM  

Aristocles: Don't hate the playa, Farklibs

Farklibulardos, hate the game.

/Fixed that for you.  I know that's what you really meant.
 
2013-07-31 12:43:15 PM  

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Don't hate the playa, Farklibs Farklibulardos, hate the game.

/Fixed that for you.  I know that's what you really meant.


Hell no, that's not what I meant! I don't speak Mexican!
 
2013-07-31 12:43:25 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10

You are far too generous


So do you think that the poor are worse off than they were 30 years ago?  That there has been no progress or even worse, a decline, since then?

Or are you two just having your sad face because the poor aren't as rich as the 1%?
 
2013-07-31 12:43:46 PM  

Bloody William: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

You should take some steroids while you poop.

Because your shiat's WEAK, SON!


I larfed.
 
2013-07-31 12:44:28 PM  
Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.
 
2013-07-31 12:46:34 PM  

AeAe: Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.

Elizabeth Warren


Left of Obama? Hell, Bob Dole qualifies!
 
2013-07-31 12:47:18 PM  

pdee: To all who are calling for higher taxes on the rich do you realize that will do nothing in regards to income inequity?

If the CEO make 10 million and the janitor make 16k it does not matter what rate you tax the CEO he still makes 10 million.


No, most liberals here don't understand that.

The other liberals believe that the government should step in and just give take $5M from the CEO and give it to that janitor.
 
2013-07-31 12:47:22 PM  
When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?
 
2013-07-31 12:48:06 PM  

netweavr: And yet the poor in the United States still own smart phones and get free food/housing. The truly impoverished in the States are so far below the poverty line that they could reasonably be removed from these studies as statistical outliers.


No, they don't. You're lying.
 
2013-07-31 12:48:08 PM  
I'm quite sure the gap between Rich and Poor also widened significantly under Communism as well.


//Just trolling through here, sorry for the mess.
 
2013-07-31 12:49:04 PM  

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.


This is true, however, Capitalism will make everyone more prosperous. There's really no need to peek into someone else's bank account.
 
2013-07-31 12:50:12 PM  
Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?
 
2013-07-31 12:50:25 PM  

pdee: To all who are calling for higher taxes on the rich do you realize that will do nothing in regards to income inequity?

If the CEO make 10 million and the janitor make 16k it does not matter what rate you tax the CEO he still makes 10 million.


epic
 
2013-07-31 12:51:28 PM  

AeAe: Elizabeth Warren


I'd be first in line to vote for her.
 
2013-07-31 12:52:22 PM  

pdee: To all who are calling for higher taxes on the rich do you realize that will do nothing in regards to income inequity?

If the CEO make 10 million and the janitor make 16k it does not matter what rate you tax the CEO he still makes 10 million.


Furnishing a healthy society (good roads & bridges, clean water, reliable energy grid, affordable food & housing, great education at all levels, strong and uncorrupt military and police protection, and on and on) doesn't come cheap for a country of our size. We need money for those things, and the rich have it--more than their fair share, which is kind of the main problem of wealth disparity.  Since they rely much more (overall) on all of the above things to run their businesses, transport their goods, protect their stuff at home & abroad, they should pay much more back into the pot.  The point of raising taxes on the rich isn't to increase wages for the poor, but to decrease the disproportionate share of the tax burden that the poor have shouldered since the Reagan Revolution.  It's not the only thing that needs to be done, but it's one of the first things that needs to be done.
 
2013-07-31 12:52:47 PM  

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.


No. Capitalism does not make any guarantees about anyone's success. It *can* work for everyone, but doesn't necessarily, no matter how hard they work at it.
 
2013-07-31 12:52:58 PM  

Outrageous Muff: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama

This is not the change we were hoping for.

 the change you were hoping for was a return to Jim Crow and lynchings.


Nope.  Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.
Did you think Obama actually campaigned on that?  You are wrong and demented.
 
2013-07-31 12:55:24 PM  

Teiritzamna: Its almost as if the power to make law is vested in another branch of government.  A branch that has shown its inability and unwillingness to actually do anything . . .


So I'm sure you let everyone here know the the economic collapse we suffered through right before Obama took office was also that branch's fault.

No it was W's fault and his alone?

It's like religious people.  500 people die in a fire and 1 survives unharmed and its time to thank God for saving the 1.
 
2013-07-31 12:55:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.


You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.
 
2013-07-31 12:56:01 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Raise the minimum wage, heavily enforced regulations on using unregistered immigrants including fines and prosecution that would make it unfeasible, severely punish companies that hours-shave to avoid giving benefits to employees, and directly incentivize using labor on creating jobs instead of blindly offering economic incentives to shift wealth around and build it up without hiring people.

Make it worthwhile to hire new workers at middle-class rates, and make it untenable to cheat or abuse workers with shiat wages, no benefits, and unreasonable demands.
 
2013-07-31 12:56:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?


The KKK guy the Democrats elected and kept in office was a Republican?  No, you are wrong again.
 
2013-07-31 12:57:27 PM  
Directly incentivize using capital on creating jobs, not labor. Provide benefits, subsidies, credits, etc. tied directly to people employed under full-time conditions.
 
2013-07-31 12:58:19 PM  

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it


Role in it? WTF does that even mean?
 
2013-07-31 12:58:25 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

The KKK guy the Democrats elected and kept in office was a Republican?  No, you are wrong again.


So why did the South turn from a Democrat stronghold into a Republican stronghold in the 1960's then?
 
2013-07-31 12:58:34 PM  
Isn't this one of the things that they spent the first 8 year of this century trying to convince us that the President had no direct control over, right alongside oil prices?

Or was I supposed to destroy those memos after a Democrat got into the WH?
 
2013-07-31 12:59:07 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.


I thought we were already doing that.

Wait, you are talking about poor people, right?
 
2013-07-31 12:59:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Why do you think that's an important aspect of the question? That Obama has made income inequality worse, I mean.

If President Obama was a liberal or had promoted liberal policies, you might have a point.  But, aside from a mildly liberal approach to gay rights, the president's policies have been consistently moderately conservative.
 
2013-07-31 12:59:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: AeAe: Elizabeth Warren

I'd be first in line to vote for her.


Absolutely.  I would volunteer for her campaign.
 
2013-07-31 12:59:38 PM  

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.


Everything works until it doesn't.

This is not just about wealth hoarding, it's about influence and opportunity hoarding.

Capitalism never said oligarchic plutocracy was one of its goals.

But it did strongly imply it.
 
2013-07-31 12:59:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.


Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would the dirty, racist democrat party members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

You're not making sense.
 
2013-07-31 01:00:21 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Occupy Heavy Machinery:

If shiatheels like Rmoney and the rest of his elk are not paying their fair share, the OHM shows up with track hoes, dozers, etc. Rip up the street in front of their house so they have no pavement to drive on. Cut power lines, sewer, gas etc. Put up roadblocks at every bridge. No tax from you? NO BRIDGE FOR YOU! Want to fly off to Maui? Deny access to the airports. Need police? Too bad. House on fire? Too bad again. Make their lives as shiatty as possible to get across the point that NO, YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT, the collective works of society did. In the end, they could probably afford to build everything privately once we cut them off from the governments sweet teat. THEN they can biatch and moan all they want.
 
2013-07-31 01:00:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.


The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?

Dude, stop trying to re-write history.  Fletch isn't going to happen.
 
2013-07-31 01:01:16 PM  

Just to put the retarded "Democrats were the party of Jim Crow" nonsense to a rest.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals



Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69-31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71-29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73-27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70-30%).

By party

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80-20%)

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)


So you found the one Democrat that was against the Civil Rights Act. Good jerb.
 
2013-07-31 01:01:18 PM  
Let's stop pretending we can compare today's Democrats and Republicans with those of the past.
 
2013-07-31 01:01:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the level and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Here it is:

AeAe: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.

We should.  Let's start with Rupert Murdock and the Kochs.

 
2013-07-31 01:01:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.
 
2013-07-31 01:02:08 PM  

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.


Earth's oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it too.

"Willing to accept their role" has no meaning here.  Capitalism is completely unavoidable, which means it isn't opt-in.  What is an option is to change the nature of capitalism as it's practiced here, an action that is opt-in and which capitalism's primary beneficiaries will fight to the (literally) bloody end to resist.

/Not sure what to think of someone who would so casually wave away the free will of most people on the planet in favor of accepting a role in a system they didn't design, don't thrive under, and have no say in.  Capitalism is not supposed to be a religion; it's just an economic system.
 
2013-07-31 01:02:28 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: And this surprised who, exactly?
Obama is no friend of the American people. But he loves his banker and hedge and Fed buddies.

If it's not illegal, it's OK.
Never forget that.


He's a bought and paid for tool, owned by the right wing intelligence agencies of the USA and Israel, like all of our leaders. What the fark do people really think they're using all of that surveillance for? J Edgar Hoover 101.
 
2013-07-31 01:02:56 PM  

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.


Watch him ignore them, then ask in the next thread "Okay, liberals, what is your solution?"
 
2013-07-31 01:03:03 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:

If shiatheels like Rmoney and the rest of his elk are not paying their fair share, the OHM shows up with track hoes, dozers, etc. Rip up the street in front of their house so they have no pavement to drive on. Cut power lines, sewer, gas etc. Put up roadblocks at every bridge. No tax from you? NO BRIDGE FOR YOU! Want to fly off to Maui? Deny access to the airports. Need police? Too bad. House on fire? Too bad again. Make their lives as shiatty as possible to get across the point that NO, YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT, the collective works of society did. In the end, they could probably afford to build everything privately once we cut them off from the governments sweet teat. THEN they can biatch and moan all they want.


Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.
 
2013-07-31 01:03:04 PM  

Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.
 
2013-07-31 01:03:33 PM  

Aristocles: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.

Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would the dirty, racist democrat party members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

You're not making sense.


Why did Northern Democrats support the Civil Rights Act more than Northern Republicans did?



The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)


The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)
 
2013-07-31 01:04:32 PM  

Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


"Were".

Why would the dirty, racist democrat party

DRINK!

members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

1) If Lester Maddox were on the ballot, I might care that he was a Democrat.
2) It's the Republicans pushing "voter ID" and other neo-Jim Crow shenanigans.
 
2013-07-31 01:04:53 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Vote Republican.
 
2013-07-31 01:05:33 PM  

Aristocles: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

This is true, however, Capitalism will make everyone more prosperous. There's really no need to peek into someone else's bank account.


apparently, prosperity in America means owning a refrigerator.


TFerWannaBe: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

No. Capitalism does not make any guarantees about anyone's success. It *can* work for everyone, but doesn't necessarily, no matter how hard they work at it.


nope, no promises at all.  there are some perks to being born into wealth in a Capitalist society, just like the royalty of old.  And it is depressing to see someone who is a hard motivated worker (who may lack higher education) get held back by wage caps & the ideas that;

Employee: "ya know, i work hard for this company, i've seen our profits raise year after year and feel i deserve a raise."

Employer: "this is what you are worth. don't like it? you can start over somewhere else, i appreciate your hard work and devotion to making me money but i'm not here to make you money"
 
2013-07-31 01:06:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

The KKK guy the Democrats elected and kept in office was a Republican?  No, you are wrong again.

So why did the South turn from a Democrat stronghold into a Republican stronghold in the 1960's then?


Because Obama, that's why.
 
2013-07-31 01:06:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Just to put the retarded "Democrats were the party of Jim Crow" nonsense to a rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69-31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71-29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73-27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70-30%).

By party

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80-20%)

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

So you found the one Democrat that was against the Civil Rights Act. Good jerb.


None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.
 
2013-07-31 01:06:36 PM  

Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?


Yeah, they're gonna go ahead and filibuster that idea.
 
2013-07-31 01:06:57 PM  
Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.
 
2013-07-31 01:08:36 PM  

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


Reality hurts doesn't it.

So why were Northern Democrats more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans then?

/still waiting for my answer
 
2013-07-31 01:08:51 PM  
But I was assured that the tax hikes on the rich would make the rich stop earning money, since the US government was punishing their success!!!!!
 
2013-07-31 01:08:52 PM  

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.


So how does that fix income inequality?
Create jobs?  You mean like all of those shovel ready jobs or the cash for clunkers?  That may improve unemployment but does nothing for income inequality.
Of course white collar crime should be prosecuted.
Capping interest?  Sure.  Just remember then that fewer people will qualify for credit cards, which may not be a bad thing.  But that does nothing for income inequality.
Forgiving student debt for work, sure.  But how does that increase their income?

Rehashing the OWS talking points is always fun since it keeps pointing out that none of that has anything to do with income inequality.
 
2013-07-31 01:09:08 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?


From Wiki:  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the proposals and actions of the Congress."

If I remember correctly, Thurmond became a Republican shortly thereafter.  Hmmm, let me check on that.

Oh, yes.  Here it is (also from Wiki):  Thurmond represented South Carolina in the from 1954 until 2003, at first as a and, after 1964, as a. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism and opposition to the Civil Rights bill of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater.

Now, if what you claim is true, why would a Democrat opposed to the Civil Rights Act become a Republican because of the Civil Rights Act?  Try to come up with something logical.
 
2013-07-31 01:09:35 PM  

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?
 
2013-07-31 01:09:42 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


To be fair, this isn't really a problem that Obama's made any effort to address.  He's take the initiative to deal with a few of the minor symptoms in a half-assed manner with things like HCR, but note that his justice department hasn't put a single person away for securities fraud over the blatant ratings falsifications that were the immediate reason for the crash in 2007/2008, or even pursued such charges against any kind of meaningful player.  That's something well within the power of the executive, to actually enforce existing laws.

He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too.  His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.

//The fact that his even pretending to give a fark makes him the better candidate on these issues still makes me despair a bit for our government.
 
2013-07-31 01:09:51 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Dusk-You-n-Me: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there

Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.

Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.


If progressives are so inept at implementing their agenda, why are you guys so pants-pissing afraid of them?
 
2013-07-31 01:10:24 PM  

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.


This coming from someone who continues to have the mistaken belief that 'socialist = communist'.  You might want to open an economic theory book sometime and realize the terms aren't interchangeable.

Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.  They were more authoritarian capitalists than anything.
 
2013-07-31 01:11:10 PM  
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.



Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?
 
2013-07-31 01:11:54 PM  

eraser8: Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.


And what party filibustered the act for over 14 hours?
 
2013-07-31 01:11:55 PM  

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


I'm sorry to have to let you go.  I gave you a week, hoping that you would find your voice and hit your stride, but you really suck at this.  Go study the work of Bloodninja, Willy on Wheels, or  David Mikkelson back in the old days, or Fark's own CDP.

Your efforts just don't measure up.  Come back with a new alt once you've learned how to troll properly.

[PLONK]
 
2013-07-31 01:12:40 PM  

Dinki: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it

Role in it? WTF does that even mean?


I mean Capitalism is like a Caste system, although the difference being there is a minimal opportunity for advancement.
 
2013-07-31 01:13:12 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.


Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?


Not with these shiatlords.
 
2013-07-31 01:13:35 PM  
eraser8 to tenpoundsofcheese : From Wiki:  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator (D-SC)

Goddammit, I hate Fark's comment system.  The Wiki article read, "The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): 'This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.'"

And..."Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism and opposition to the Civil Rights bill of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater. "
 
2013-07-31 01:13:39 PM  

Aristocles: eraser8: Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.

And what party filibustered the act for over 14 hours?


Mrtraveler01: So why were Northern Democrats more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans then?

Still waiting for an answer

 
2013-07-31 01:13:59 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:


Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.


you win the "Stupidest Thing Said on Fark Today"
congratulations.
 
2013-07-31 01:14:19 PM  

Jim_Callahan: He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too. His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.


The CFPB and the nearly half a billion dollars it has recovered for consumers isn't nothing.
 
2013-07-31 01:14:48 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.



They know this but asking them to quit the charade and try on some intellectual honesty for a change is an exercise in futility.
 
2013-07-31 01:14:58 PM  

Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?


That's why I'm so confused why IBD would care about this. Usually they're too busy kissing Wall Street's ass to notice.
 
2013-07-31 01:15:19 PM  

weddingsinger: Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.


That is clearly an unsustainable trend.  We can't keep funneling all the wealth to ultra wealthy.
 
2013-07-31 01:15:36 PM  

Dinki: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?


Mr. Mrtraveler01 stated that his post was going to "put an end" to folks making the factual statement that the democrat party is the party of Jim Crow laws. I asked my question because he didn't follow up his claim with any pertinent information. Perhaps he was confused.
 
2013-07-31 01:15:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too. His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.


Other than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , which ,ya know, kinda wouldn't exist without Obama. Or the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which, for all it's flaws,  also would never got signed by a republican president.
 
2013-07-31 01:16:04 PM  

Aristocles: eraser8: Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.

And what party filibustered the act for over 14 hours?


Parties don't filibuster.  Senators do.

But, please, explain to me why Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party in protest to the passage of the CRA if the Republican party was so very much pro-CRA?  Seems like an odd thing to do, doesn't it?
 
2013-07-31 01:16:22 PM  

pdee: Teiritzamna: Its almost as if the power to make law is vested in another branch of government.  A branch that has shown its inability and unwillingness to actually do anything . . .

So I'm sure you let everyone here know the the economic collapse we suffered through right before Obama took office was also that branch's fault.

No it was W's fault and his alone?

It's like religious people.  500 people die in a fire and 1 survives unharmed and its time to thank God for saving the 1.


It's almost like you make shait up. Nobody said it was W's fault alone. If anything I'd blame Clintion and the deregulation lobby empowered by Congress for legislating that oversight was a bad idea.
 
2013-07-31 01:17:34 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?

That's why I'm so confused why IBD would care about this. Usually they're too busy kissing Wall Street's ass to notice.


They sound very concerned.
 
2013-07-31 01:17:53 PM  

Lochsteppe: /Not sure what to think of someone who would so casually wave away the free will of most people on the planet in favor of accepting a role in a system they didn't design, don't thrive under, and have no say in. Capitalism is not supposed to be a religion; it's just an economic system.


isn't it weird? you would think that things wouldn't have been able to advance to the inequality that we have today but, here we are & people still go to work struggle to make ends meet & the only motivating factor to enact change is to vote in a political system that is created specifically to benefit the wealthy of our society.

i am starting to think we deserve to be where we are since we aren't doing anything to change the circumstances.
 
2013-07-31 01:18:20 PM  

eraser8: tenpoundsofcheese: The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?


Now, if what you claim is true, why would a Democrat opposed to the Civil Rights Act become a Republican because of the Civil Rights Act?  Try to come up with something logical.


WTF are you talking about?
Richard Russell led the filibuster.
He remained a Democratic Senator until he retired in 1971
Try some logical learning.

the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russel (D-GA). Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
 
2013-07-31 01:19:07 PM  

Aristocles: Dinki: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?

Mr. Mrtraveler01 stated that his post was going to "put an end" to folks making the factual statement that the democrat party is the party of Jim Crow laws. I asked my question because he didn't follow up his claim with any pertinent information. Perhaps he was confused.


Democrats in the South supported Jim Crow laws. Democrats in the North support the Civil Rights Act.

What part of this is hard for you to comprehend?

"But...but...Byrd"...congratulations you found the one Democrat from the North that was against it (and he's from West Virginia), still there were 29 Northern Republicans in both Houses that voted against it too. Why do the 29 Republicans get a pass but the 1 Democrat doesn't?
 
2013-07-31 01:20:28 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mrtraveler01: Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?

That's why I'm so confused why IBD would care about this. Usually they're too busy kissing Wall Street's ass to notice.

They sound very concerned.


I'm still amazed at that newspaper.

I've seen it at newsstands but I've never seen anyone actually buy or read a copy. Their existence is a mystery to me.
 
2013-07-31 01:20:52 PM  
Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.
 
2013-07-31 01:22:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.


So why did Northern Democrats support the Civil Rights Act more than Northern Republicans?

/no one seem to be able to answer this question
 
2013-07-31 01:22:56 PM  
So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that President Obama is a 1964 Democrat who hates black people.
 
2013-07-31 01:23:47 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?


Sure.

The simple fact that we allowed rents to be conflated with capital, and then decided to give such money makers preferential treatment through the tax code, encouraging even more rent seekers to leech money out of the system, well, we farked ourselves.
 
2013-07-31 01:24:15 PM  

FeFiFoFark: tenpoundsofcheese: SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:


Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.

you win the "Stupidest Thing Said on Fark Today"
congratulations.


Why?   You guys whine that Romney paid what the government asked him to, but give Rangel and Geitner a pass for not even doing that.

Why is it right to criticize Romney for paying his taxes?  If you don't like what he paid then the anger should be directed at the government, not Romney.
 
2013-07-31 01:24:45 PM  

meat0918: Lionel Mandrake: Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?

Sure.

The simple fact that we allowed rents to be conflated with capital, and then decided to give such money makers preferential treatment through the tax code, encouraging even more rent seekers to leech money out of the system, well, we farked ourselves.


Shh...we're not supposed to point that out.

That's Class Warfare donchaknow.
 
2013-07-31 01:25:04 PM  

I_C_Weener: So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that President Obama is a 1964 Democrat who hates black people.


Vote for Ike!
 
2013-07-31 01:26:03 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is it right to criticize Romney for paying his taxes? If you don't like what he paid then the anger should be directed at the government, not Romney.


True. But the thing that got me is that even though the tax code already favors him, Romney was upset that it didn't favor him enough.
 
2013-07-31 01:26:54 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.

So how does that fix income inequality?
Create jobs?  You mean like all of those shovel ready jobs or the cash for clunkers?  That may improve unemployment but does nothing for income inequality.
Of course white collar crime should be prosecuted.
Capping interest?  Sure.  Just remember then that fewer people will qualify for credit cards, which may not be a bad thing.  But that does nothing for income inequality.
Forgiving student debt for work, sure.  But how does that increase their income?

Rehashing the OWS talking points is always fun since it keeps pointing out that none of that has anything to do with income inequality.


I'll ignore the fact that you're disregarding the inequality problem itself and focusing on a narrow definition of income.

How do controls on bankster abuses help the middle class gain footing?  People that get to save their money instead of using it to pay off interest on loans can invest it, generating wealth and income.  If you think the income gap is bad, look at the wealth gap.

Stopping bankster abuses of the middle class and the system?  See previous answer

How do middle class jobs close the wealth gap?  I'm not dignifying that question with a response.
 
2013-07-31 01:27:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: WTF are you talking about?


Once again (from Wiki):  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): 'This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.

Now, it's linked so you don't have to act like an ignoramus.

And, as I asked another Farker:  please, explain to me why Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party in protest to the passage of the CRA if the Republican party was so very much pro-CRA?  Seems like an odd thing to do, doesn't it?

If you were smarter or more interesting, your act might come off as clever.  But, really, it just comes across as being desperate and dishonest.

And, I don't really have a dog in this partisan hunt, as I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
 
2013-07-31 01:28:04 PM  
Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?
 
2013-07-31 01:28:15 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.


That's a very nice anecdote but it doesn't just cancel out the many other congressman and untold amount of voters who did switch over. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.
 
2013-07-31 01:28:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

So why did Northern Democrats support the Civil Rights Act more than Northern Republicans?

/no one seem to be able to answer this question


That's because it's irrelevant to anything being discussed in this thread.
 
2013-07-31 01:29:36 PM  

The Drawing Board: Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?


I wonder that too.  I guess some people just can't help it.

these assholes go away when you ignore them
 
2013-07-31 01:31:16 PM  
I actually don't see a real problem if the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting not-poorer, in absolute numbers.

However, even the very poor should have the ability to get adequate food, shelter, medical care, and transportation, and the ability to send their children to college or job training.  If those needs can be met, the rich can have as many Porsches as they want.  Of course, currently, those needs often aren't being met.
 
2013-07-31 01:31:28 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.


Well, that one guy sure sets the standard for everyone.  I never said it applied 100%.  Nothing ever does in politics.

Southern racists in general went to the GOP after the CRA.

Nixon counted on it (you dolt)
 
2013-07-31 01:31:58 PM  

Aristocles: That's because it's irrelevant to anything being discussed in this thread.


True the fact that Northern Democrats were more supportive of the CRA than Northern Republicans is completely irrelevant when discussing the claim of how Republicans were more supportive of the CRA than Democrats.
 
2013-07-31 01:32:00 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Actual socialism.  Not what the GOP claims is "socialism".  That would be the best way to turn things around.
 
2013-07-31 01:32:07 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:

If shiatheels like Rmoney and the rest of his elk are not paying their fair share, the OHM shows up with track hoes, dozers, etc. Rip up the street in front of their house so they have no pavement to drive on. Cut power lines, sewer, gas etc. Put up roadblocks at every bridge. No tax from you? NO BRIDGE FOR YOU! Want to fly off to Maui? Deny access to the airports. Need police? Too bad. House on fire? Too bad again. Make their lives as shiatty as possible to get across the point that NO, YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT, the collective works of society did. In the end, they could probably afford to build everything privately once we cut them off from the governments sweet teat. THEN they can biatch and moan all they want.

Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.


Dang it. And I got all my nipples greased for nothing.
 
2013-07-31 01:32:58 PM  
I found the GOP game plan in this secret e-mail

Hey fellow GOP leaders here is what we will do.

Step 1) block EVERYTHING, choke the government off, filibuster all.

Step 2) Blame President for things he has tried to do that WE BLOCKED (closing Gitmo, widening income gap, women on his cabinet, returning drone strike powers, )

Step 3) Stand on the smoldering ash of what was America's economy and catch the rapture comet.
 
2013-07-31 01:33:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

Well, that one guy sure sets the standard for everyone.  I never said it applied 100%.  Nothing ever does in politics.

Southern racists in general went to the GOP after the CRA.

Nixon counted on it (you dolt)


And the GOP actually apologized for it in 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR20 05 071302342.html
 
2013-07-31 01:34:12 PM  
tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Change the import tariff system on goods manufactured overseas by American based companies. Make it cost more to bring in Made In China goods than it would be to manufacture them here, and adjust the tax structure to give the breaks to those companies that produce here.

Change the tax structure from the front loading system we have now (where through tax incentives we're essentially paying people before they do the work) and make them retroactive based upon performance. Allow for incentives for expansions and start ups for the first year only and make them relative to the number of US based workers you have. Make allowances for R&D as long as it's done in the US using American workers.

What stupid Conservatives have been buffaloed into forgetting is that economies grow from the middle out, not the top down. When working people have money to spend, and the security to spend it, it works. When business cuts jobs to save a few bucks, they're eliminating the pool of potential customers. Making the goods cheaper does not solve the problem. The manufacturing environment that sustained the middle class has been decimated so that the few at the top can benefit to the detriment of what was once the middle class. It didn't happen by accident, either. It was politically orchestrated, and both sides played their roles.

22 million jobs have gone in just a generation. They've been replaced by low wage McJobs while wealth inequality continues to increase. Conservative fellators of the rich would be better off reading about the French Revolution than Atlas Shrugged, because the former actually happened (and could happen again) while the other is a dystopian fairy tale.
 
2013-07-31 01:34:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

Reality hurts doesn't it.

So why were Northern Democrats more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans then?

/still waiting for my answer


How the fark would he know reality hurts, he's never been there.
 
2013-07-31 01:36:18 PM  

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.
 
2013-07-31 01:36:32 PM  

Tigger: Mrtraveler01: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

Reality hurts doesn't it.

So why were Northern Democrats more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans then?

/still waiting for my answer

How the fark would he know reality hurts, he's never been there.


Touche.
 
2013-07-31 01:40:35 PM  
A "Capitalist" is someone who wants to get rich.

A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

Oh, and as far as the "Southern Strategy" goes, if it didn't work, then WHY is all of the former Confederacy solid red Republican?
 
2013-07-31 01:41:46 PM  

zappaisfrank: A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.


HAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-07-31 01:45:11 PM  

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


When did you get the idea that Obama was a progressive? He campaigned on being a Republican from the 90's. Just because Rush and Fox label him as such, does not in fact make it true.
 
2013-07-31 01:45:14 PM  
what is depressing for me is that if i made what i make today just a short 20 years ago, i would be in much much better shape. own a home, actually have some savings, etc.

Thanks Capitalism.

/I know, get a job ya lazy fark!
//I have a job!
 
2013-07-31 01:45:27 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

HAHAHAHAHA


Care to elaborate on why that comment is so "funny"?

A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?
 
2013-07-31 01:47:55 PM  

Mrbogey: Obama: Trickle up works!


Mrbogey: I'll punch you in the face!
 
2013-07-31 01:49:41 PM  

EyeballKid: Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?

Only the progressivest progressive to ever progressive a progressive!


Pfft, typical sheeple from the media.

He is clearly the most liberal lib that ever libbed a lib.
 
2013-07-31 01:49:51 PM  

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.

So how does that fix income inequality?
Create jobs?  You mean like all of those shovel ready jobs or the cash for clunkers?  That may improve unemployment but does nothing for income inequality.
Of course white collar crime should be prosecuted.
Capping interest?  Sure.  Just remember then that fewer people will qualify for credit cards, which may not be a bad thing.  But that does nothing for income inequality.
Forgiving student debt for work, sure.  But how does that increase their income?

Rehashing the OWS talking points is always fun since it keeps pointing out that none of that has anything to do with income inequality.

I'll ignore the fact that you're disregarding the inequality problem itself and focusing on a narrow definition of income.


I am just using the definition of income as it is used in discussions of income inequality.  If you want to make up different meanings, go ahead.  Just don't expect that anyone will know WTF you are saying.

How do controls on bankster abuses help the middle class gain footing?  People that get to save their money instead of using it to pay off interest on loans can invest it, generating wealth and income.

You haven't made any correlation between banker abuses and interest rates on loans to consumers.  Since they are market driven, fed driven rates, why is putting some bankers in jail (a good thing if they deserve it) going to make money available for Joe Consumer to invest?  How much would interest rates go down based on putting more bankers in jail?

If you think the income gap is bad, look at the wealth gap.

Are you trying to move goal posts now?


Stopping bankster abuses of the middle class and the system?  See previous answer

How do middle class jobs close the wealth gap?  I'm not dignifying that question with a response so I am going to move the goal posts instead.

 .

So you still have no plan or methods to change the income inequality. Okay.
 
2013-07-31 01:50:21 PM  

The Drawing Board: Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?


Yeah, I just blocked him myself.

Pretty funny that the guy in the article is complaining about Obama not recovering the economy fast enough... from what, exactly? Oh, right, nevermind how the economy got tanked in the first place by deregulation and unfunded wars, just blame Obama for not "recovering" fast enough.

Brilliant!
 
2013-07-31 01:50:56 PM  

zappaisfrank: A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?


A smart businessman/woman knows if everyone is getting to be as rich (or richer) as he/she is, he or she isn't going to have a reserve army of labor to pick from in order to operate their business and therefore would go out of business.

A smart business person understands they rely (leech) off of labor in order to profit.
 
2013-07-31 01:52:11 PM  

Geotpf: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

Yeah, but it's 2013 now, not 1971, nor 1964.  The Democratic Party of 1964, especially those in the South, is a much different beast than the Democratic Party of 2013.  You know it, I know it, stop being stupid.


Duh.  Of course things are different now.  But that doesn't change the past.  The Democrats were behind the Jim Crow laws and led the filibuster to stop the Civil Rights Act.
Bonus:  they also had a KKK member as Senator.
 
2013-07-31 01:52:46 PM  

zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

HAHAHAHAHA

Care to elaborate on why that comment is so "funny"?

A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?


That really depends if he is thinking long run or short run.

Short run it makes perfect business sense to outsource all of your production as you can still take advantage of relatively "wealthy" Americans to buy your products.  In the long run that is a losing proposition and as history shows ends up with your head on a pike.

For me, what I'm most pissed off about is that although I'm far from the .1 or 1%, being a top 5%-er will mean that the schlubs will cut off my head as well.
 
2013-07-31 01:53:23 PM  

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Actual socialism.  Not what the GOP claims is "socialism".  That would be the best way to turn things around.


Can you be specific?
I am curious as to how people think income inequality can be fixed since it has gotten worse under Obama.
 
2013-07-31 01:54:42 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Can you be specific?
I am curious as to how people think income inequality can be fixed since it has gotten worse under Obama.


Socialism, as in an actual socialist revolution, the aftermath being the dictatorship of the proletariat.
 
2013-07-31 01:55:54 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:

If shiatheels like Rmoney and the rest of his elk are not paying their fair share, the OHM shows up with track hoes, dozers, etc. Rip up the street in front of their house so they have no pavement to drive on. Cut power lines, sewer, gas etc. Put up roadblocks at every bridge. No tax from you? NO BRIDGE FOR YOU! Want to fly off to Maui? Deny access to the airports. Need police? Too bad. House on fire? Too bad again. Make their lives as shiatty as possible to get across the point that NO, YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT, the collective works of society did. In the end, they could probably afford to build everything privately once we cut them off from the governments sweet teat. THEN they can biatch and moan all they want.

Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.

Dang it. And I got all my nipples greased for nothing.


okay.  I am struggling a little bit with what that means and have some odd images in my head...stepping away slowly...
 
2013-07-31 01:58:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Why is it right to criticize Romney for paying his taxes? If you don't like what he paid then the anger should be directed at the government, not Romney.

True. But the thing that got me is that even though the tax code already favors him, Romney was upset that it didn't favor him enough.


That's fair.  Although I don't know that Romney was upset as much as he thought a change in the tax code would be a good thing for the country.  He doesn't strike me as the guy who feels he needs another $50M on top of what he has.  He would have stayed with Bain if that were the case.
 
2013-07-31 01:58:18 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?

A smart businessman/woman knows if everyone is getting to be as rich (or richer) as he/she is, he or she isn't going to have a reserve army of labor to pick from in order to operate their business and therefore would go out of business.

A smart business person understands they rely (leech) off of labor in order to profit.


You are assigning a different meaning to "rich" than what I intended and I think you know it.

Of course, a capitalist society is going to have income strata. But as I stated earlier, economies thrive when working class people have money to spend and the security to spend it. That was why early industrial pioneers like Henry Ford paid his people well...so they could buy one of the cars they manufactured! If people are living comfortably, they will spend their money and everyone will thrive.

Jobs and professions are intertwined. Very few businesses do not rely on some other end, or ends, of the economic food chain to succeed. Start removing components and the whole machine falls apart. It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you.
 
2013-07-31 01:58:34 PM  

EyeballKid: Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?

Only the progressivest progressive to ever progressive a progressive!


I suddenly want to buy car insurance.
 
2013-07-31 01:59:24 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: Obama: Trickle up works!

wat


No kidding...Mrbogey actually said something rational and fact based. I almost fell out of my chair!
 
2013-07-31 01:59:35 PM  

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: Can you be specific?
I am curious as to how people think income inequality can be fixed since it has gotten worse under Obama.

Socialism, as in an actual socialist revolution, the aftermath being the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Has that worked anywhere to fix income inequality?
Which country is the closest to that model?
 
2013-07-31 01:59:42 PM  

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: Can you be specific?
I am curious as to how people think income inequality can be fixed since it has gotten worse under Obama.

Socialism, as in an actual socialist revolution, the aftermath being the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Cite one example of this being attempted that hasn't led to despotism, destitution and despair.
 
2013-07-31 02:00:51 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: since it has gotten worse under Obama.


and it will continue to get worse regardless of who is President, or did you think this is something new & that President Obama created the income gap?
 
2013-07-31 02:03:00 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: pdee: To all who are calling for higher taxes on the rich do you realize that will do nothing in regards to income inequity?

If the CEO make 10 million and the janitor make 16k it does not matter what rate you tax the CEO he still makes 10 million.

No, most liberals here don't understand that.

The other liberals believe that the government should step in and just give take $5M from the CEO and give it to that janitor.


As I see it, "liberals" think that if you get more tax money (i.e., "tax the rich"), you can pay for more government--including government jobs (JOBS!!!!), which we're currently finding less of in today's employment market.  Problem with more government jobs is you have to give them something to do, which means more bureaucracy in some shape or form.  :/

With that having been said, there are some "government" jobs I find of more importance (teachers, researchers, etc) than others (bureaucrats, etc).

My two cents.
 
2013-07-31 02:03:15 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So you still have no plan or methods to change the income inequality. Okay.


An unfair system generates unequal outcomes, income being one among many.  Leveling the field not only increases the position of the middle and lower classes, it puts an end to the ill-gotten gains of the upper classes.  Inequality happens when the few at the top prosper on the backs of the people beneath them and hoard the benefits for themselves.  Stopping banksters from making criminal profits at the expense of the economy as a whole closes the gap both from the top and from the bottom.

I don't know why I keep expecting actual responses from trolls.
 
2013-07-31 02:04:00 PM  

zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you


By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.
 
2013-07-31 02:04:40 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

Everything works until it doesn't.

This is not just about wealth hoarding, it's about influence and opportunity hoarding.


And that's the issue.

Inequality of outcomes (the income gap) isn't the problem - if someone has the talent and drive to make money, then so be it.

The problem is inequality of opportunity. A child born with the raw ability and drive to do something valuable shouldn't fail merely because he had the misfortune of being conceived by poor parents.

The US is slipping behind other countries in terms of economic mobility. That's a big problem, runs directly counter to our core values ("land of opportunity" and all that), and is in the long term very bad for the nation as a whole.
 
2013-07-31 02:04:53 PM  
In Obama's defense, the Middle and Lower Class were already at or below 0 before he took office. Any percent growth that the weahy have seen were it given to the lower classes still ends up with 0.

It doesn't help with all of the chucklehead GEDs in Business (and degreed Chicago school economics MBAs) out there who failed kindergarten math but think they understand business operation costs who fight for increased profits/share values and the expense of the middle and lower class.
 
2013-07-31 02:05:06 PM  

Aristocles: Cite one example of this being attempted that hasn't led to despotism, destitution and despair.


I will give you two: The Paris Commune and Spain prior to Franco. Both of which were met with capitalist backlash, but thrived while in existence.
 
2013-07-31 02:07:02 PM  

Isitoveryet: tenpoundsofcheese: since it has gotten worse under Obama.

and it will continue to get worse regardless of who is President, or did you think this is something new & that President Obama created the income gap?


No.  It got really bad under Clinton.  People didn't mind as much then since the economy was doing well with lower unemployment.   People focused more then on what they had rather than whine that someone else has more (hello entitled OWS crowd).  As unemployment, underemployment and people quitting the workforce, this entitled generation has totally shifted away from job creation and wage improvement to "he has more, that ain't fair).
 
2013-07-31 02:09:13 PM  

Bloody William: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Raise the minimum wage, heavily enforced regulations on using unregistered immigrants including fines and prosecution that would make it unfeasible, severely punish companies that hours-shave to avoid giving benefits to employees, and directly incentivize using labor on creating jobs instead of blindly offering economic incentives to shift wealth around and build it up without hiring people.

Make it worthwhile to hire new workers at middle-class rates, and make it untenable to cheat or abuse workers with shiat wages, no benefits, and unreasonable demands.


Before I say what I'm thinking about raising the minimum wage, let me add a disclaimer that I can see what I'm about to suggest being abused in some shape or form.  And that suggestion is:  a tiered waiver program for small businesses who would otherwise go out of business if they had to pay their employees more.  I.e., a sole proprietor who has a little used book shop that hires someone to man the register a couple days per week.  Or a local landscaping company.  Of course, the OTHER option would be to reduce business tax rates for these smaller businesses* (much like we have a progressive tax rate for income) AND a uniform, increased minimum wage.  Then, any business should be able to handle the increased minimum wage.

*which we may already have, and is probably dependent on what state you're in. IANATE.
 
2013-07-31 02:09:41 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?

A smart businessman/woman knows if everyone is getting to be as rich (or richer) as he/she is, he or she isn't going to have a reserve army of labor to pick from in order to operate their business and therefore would go out of business.

A smart business person understands they rely (leech) off of labor in order to profit.


A smart business person knows you can fleece a sheep many times, but only kill and eat it once.  One can rely on labor without oppressing them.  While any capitalist should want a bigger slice of the pie, it doesn't have to be a zero sum game if you make the pie bigger.

/mmm
/shepherd's pie
 
2013-07-31 02:13:02 PM  

nocturnal001: zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

HAHAHAHAHA

Care to elaborate on why that comment is so "funny"?

A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?

That really depends if he is thinking long run or short run.

Short run it makes perfect business sense to outsource all of your production as you can still take advantage of relatively "wealthy" Americans to buy your products.  In the long run that is a losing proposition and as history shows ends up with your head on a pike.


The farm belt Eisenhower Presbyterian Republican in my DNA says that long term growth ultimately is the better choice. The window of opportunity with the relatively 'wealthy" Americans you reference is dwindling. My brother is a construction contractor, and the only calls he's getting for home improvement work are from retirees who made their nest eggs back when there were actual decent paying jobs. The only calls he gets from the under 40's are insurance estimates, and even then there's no guarantee the homeowners will even follow through on the needed repairs.
 
2013-07-31 02:13:04 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."



Bingo. It is shocking to argue with the average American and suddenly realise that they don't have a farking clue about who actually writes the laws in this country.
 
2013-07-31 02:13:12 PM  

palelizard: A smart business person knows you can fleece a sheep many times, but only kill and eat it once. One can rely on labor without oppressing them. While any capitalist should want a bigger slice of the pie, it doesn't have to be a zero sum game if you make the pie bigger.

/mmm
/shepherd's pie


A smart business person knows that there are virtually and infinite amount of sheep, so this point really doesn't matter.
 
2013-07-31 02:13:32 PM  

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Cite one example of this being attempted that hasn't led to despotism, destitution and despair.

I will give you two: The Paris Commune and Spain prior to Franco. Both of which were met with capitalist backlash, but thrived while in existence.


So, one of your examples lasted all of 3 months, the other ended in despotism. Not a roaring endorsement.
 
2013-07-31 02:13:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Isitoveryet: tenpoundsofcheese: since it has gotten worse under Obama.

and it will continue to get worse regardless of who is President, or did you think this is something new & that President Obama created the income gap?

No.  It got really bad under Clinton.  People didn't mind as much then since the economy was doing well with lower unemployment.   People focused more then on what they had rather than whine that someone else has more (hello entitled OWS crowd).  As unemployment, underemployment and people quitting the workforce, this entitled generation has totally shifted away from job creation and wage improvement to "he has more, that ain't fair).


everything you mention is a reactionary response, a reaction to the economy. You make it sound like people made a concerted decision to be where our economy put them & that has got to be the most appalling idea you have put forth. I know some people like to blame the poor people of our country while neglecting the lawmakers policy makers & the social elite who actually write legislation & enact laws (usually to benefit themselves).
entitled generation? to whom are you referring?
 
2013-07-31 02:13:59 PM  

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: So you still have no plan or methods to change the income inequality. Okay.

An unfair system generates unequal outcomes, income being one among many.

Leveling the field not only increases the position of the middle and lower classes, it puts an end to the ill-gotten gains of the upper classes.


How do you propose leveling the field?  What exactly would you do and what would this level field look like?


Inequality happens when the few at the top prosper on the backs of the people beneath them and hoard the benefits for themselves.

So again, I ask you.  What would you do?  Anti-hording laws?  Aren't those people getting paid?  Can't they decide not to do the work if they don't like that someone is benefiting from their labor?

Stopping banksters from making criminal profits at the expense of the economy as a whole closes the gap both from the top and from the bottom.

Meh.  Criminal activities should be punished.

I am not sure what you mean by criminal profits.  Are you proposing regulating profits?  Where exactly do you think those profits go (protip:  profit is money left over after everyone has been paid) and who benefits from them (protip:  think mutual funds, 401k investments, pensions, unions, teachers)

I don't know why I keep expecting actual responses from trolls.

I am not a troll.  But I am giving you actual responses and yet you still can explain how you would fix income inequality.  I asked you specific questions above, let's see what you reply with.
 
2013-07-31 02:14:04 PM  
Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.
 
2013-07-31 02:14:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: this entitled generation has totally shifted away from job creation and wage improvement to "he has more, that ain't fair).


probably the best way to actually change things, the people who have all the wealth might start getting scared that the plebeians are focused on the wealth gap.
 
2013-07-31 02:16:23 PM  

Aristocles: So, one of your examples lasted all of 3 months, the other ended in despotism. Not a roaring endorsement.


Why did the Paris Commune last 3 months?  Why did the Spanish Civil War start and why did it end in despotism?  Capitalist backlash.

Not exactly a rousing endorsement for capitalism.

/Troll better (I know ya got it in ya!)
 
2013-07-31 02:16:47 PM  

xanadian: Bloody William: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Raise the minimum wage, heavily enforced regulations on using unregistered immigrants including fines and prosecution that would make it unfeasible, severely punish companies that hours-shave to avoid giving benefits to employees, and directly incentivize using labor on creating jobs instead of blindly offering economic incentives to shift wealth around and build it up without hiring people.

Make it worthwhile to hire new workers at middle-class rates, and make it untenable to cheat or abuse workers with shiat wages, no benefits, and unreasonable demands.

Before I say what I'm thinking about raising the minimum wage, let me add a disclaimer that I can see what I'm about to suggest being abused in some shape or form.  And that suggestion is:  a tiered waiver program for small businesses who would otherwise go out of business if they had to pay their employees more.  I.e., a sole proprietor who has a little used book shop that hires someone to man the register a couple days per week.  Or a local landscaping company.  Of course, the OTHER option would be to reduce business tax rates for these smaller businesses* (much like we have a progressive tax rate for income) AND a uniform, increased minimum wage.  Then, any business should be able to handle the increased minimum wage.

*which we may already have, and is probably dependent on what state you're in. IANATE.


I think a general solution to a lot of economic problems is to establish a tiered system of regulation and even taxation for businesses based on their size.  Small businesses should be mostly left alone to thrive, medium businesses regulated and taxed moderately, while large businesses, the large concentrations of wealth that Jefferson warned would undermine democracy, should be heavily regulated and taxed.
 
2013-07-31 02:18:00 PM  

MSFT: The Drawing Board: Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?

Yeah, I just blocked him myself.


He was talking about you.
Did you block yourself?
 
2013-07-31 02:18:21 PM  
The impoverishment and attrition of the American middle class was launched under Reagan, and according to his philosophies - why wouldn't a Reagan Republican like Obama continue that? Remember - the fact that the current Republican Party consists of Talibans and Nazis doesn't make Obama a Liberal, or a real Democrat by some sort of relativistic magical alchemy.
The reality is that this country is politically f**ked out of all perspective, and needs to move about a mile to the left to even acheive a moderate policy. The rest of the civilized world thinks our political spectrum is completely insane - and they are right.

"I want to see this country's wealth in fewer, righter, tighter hands"
George Bush the Elder-1988 - a promise kept!
 
2013-07-31 02:18:46 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.


Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.
 
2013-07-31 02:19:21 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: I am not a troll


i213.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-31 02:20:38 PM  

Aristocles: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.

Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would the dirty, racist democrat party members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

You're not making sense.


It's more complex than just Democrat vs. Republican...  SOUTHERN Democrats hated it by a wide margin; whereas NORTHERN Democrats were okey-dokey with it.  But yes, by raw party percentages, Republicans were 80% YEA while Democrats were in the low 60s.  There were still majorities in both parties, however.
 
2013-07-31 02:21:31 PM  

FarkedOver: Aristocles: So, one of your examples lasted all of 3 months, the other ended in despotism. Not a roaring endorsement.

Why did the Paris Commune last 3 months?  Why did the Spanish Civil War start and why did it end in despotism?  Capitalist backlash.

Not exactly a rousing endorsement for capitalism.

/Troll better (I know ya got it in ya!)


Capitalism is not a form of government (neither is Socialism, under many definitions). If big scary "capitalists" could bring down your socialist regime in 3 months, it must have been pretty weak and unsustainable. Also, question, you're not saying Franco was a capitalist, are you?
 
2013-07-31 02:24:18 PM  

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.


Thanks for taking the time to post!
 
2013-07-31 02:25:02 PM  

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.


SpankMeJohnny
Account created:    2013-07-05 12:32:39

oh, look - another one!
 
2013-07-31 02:27:04 PM  

Aristocles: Capitalism is not a form of government (neither is Socialism, under many definitions). If big scary "capitalists" could bring down your socialist regime in 3 months, it must have been pretty weak and unsustainable. Also, question, you're not saying Franco was a capitalist, are you?


He was a dictator/fascist backed by capitalists.
 
2013-07-31 02:27:51 PM  

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.


right, because a government that provides minimal assistance to its poorest populace are enslaving them.

/vote Republican
 
2013-07-31 02:28:13 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: I am not sure what you mean by criminal profits.


The totally unregulated derivatives market, for starters, loans issued without regard to risk in order to be packaged and sold, rating investments at AAA for investors, including the pension funds you mentioned, while dumping their holdings in anticipation of a crash, manipulating the Libor rate to generate hundreds of millions as money flies around from bank to bank, high frequency trading that uses supercomputers to basically generate money out of thin air

The problem is that most of these things are not technically criminal, because the banks and their cohorts own the politicians and regulators who get to decide what is criminal.  These people make massive short term profits, while pumping up bubbles that will inevitably pop, causing severe economic crises that affect regular people, while the TBTF criminal organizations get taxpayer subsidized bailouts.

Having a supposedly democratic system be controlled by a small group of moneyed interests to the point that they are able to crash the economy to line their pockets with quarterly profits is bad for everyone.  I don't understand how people have difficulty seeing this.
 
2013-07-31 02:29:34 PM  

mediablitz: Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.

Zombie Reagan?


He wants your brains because Alzheimer's took his!
 
2013-07-31 02:29:40 PM  

I_C_Weener: So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that President Obama is a 1964 Democrat who hates black people.


Which is why there's an increase in the income gap.  STUDY IT OUT
 
2013-07-31 02:30:20 PM  

FarkedOver: He was a dictator/fascist backed by capitalists.


aren't they all at this point in history, aren't 'they all.

another grand contribution to society by Capitalism.
 
2013-07-31 02:33:03 PM  

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Capitalism is not a form of government (neither is Socialism, under many definitions). If big scary "capitalists" could bring down your socialist regime in 3 months, it must have been pretty weak and unsustainable. Also, question, you're not saying Franco was a capitalist, are you?

He was a dictator/fascist backed by capitalists.


Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?
 
2013-07-31 02:33:35 PM  

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.



Either you're willfully ignorant, or dense, or a troll.

Whatever the case, you're not worth reading. You make this place worse just by showing up. To the ignore list with you.
 
2013-07-31 02:34:23 PM  

Isitoveryet: Aristocles: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

This is true, however, Capitalism will make everyone more prosperous. There's really no need to peek into someone else's bank account.

apparently, prosperity in America means owning a refrigerator.


TFerWannaBe: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

No. Capitalism does not make any guarantees about anyone's success. It *can* work for everyone, but doesn't necessarily, no matter how hard they work at it.

nope, no promises at all.  there are some perks to being born into wealth in a Capitalist society, just like the royalty of old.  And it is depressing to see someone who is a hard motivated worker (who may lack higher education) get held back by wage caps & the ideas that;

Employee: "ya know, i work hard for this company, i've seen our profits raise year after year and feel i deserve a raise."

Employer: "this is what you are worth. don't like it? you can start over somewhere else, i appreciate your hard work and devotion to making me money but i'm not here to make you money"


Then the Employer says: "Why is no one buying my product? I better cut wages again."

Modern MBAs forget Henry Ford, who doubled his salary to attract the best workers and allow them more money to buy his cars.
 
2013-07-31 02:34:24 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

Well, that one guy sure sets the standard for everyone.  I never said it applied 100%.  Nothing ever does in politics.

Southern racists in general went to the GOP after the CRA.

Nixon counted on it (you dolt)


heh

It's what's known as the Southern Strategy.  Of course, the South started bleeding Dems (switching to Republicans, slowly) long before 1948 thanks to the Democratic Party adding civil rights as a plank to its platform...after a very long period of supporting slavery and (later) segregation.

As has been mentioned many times here, yesterday's Democratic Party is not today's Democratic Party.  Much the same can be said for the GOP.  I'm not sure how EITHER party is much like what it used to be in the 1800s/1900s...
 
2013-07-31 02:35:21 PM  

SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.



Login: SpankMeJohnny
Fark account number: 866344
Account created: 2013-07-05 12:32:39

It looks like Free Republic hit their quota for new users so apparently Fark has been "blessed" with the spillover.
 
2013-07-31 02:36:25 PM  

zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.


Sure, he was a shiat bag.  But the notion that Ford "raised wages" is kind of a myth. What's more of a myth is that he did it out of some benevolent obligation to the plight of workers.

Ford had his goons actually go to people's houses and make sure they were being "Americanized".  This was a stipulation of the "raised wage".  They made sure you spoke english, didn't gamble or drink and made sure you avoided union organizations.  Oh and women weren't eligible unless they were single and the sole caretaker of a family, and men were not eligible if their wives worked outside of the home.

Now why did Ford create this $5 dollar a day bonus (not raise)?  To increase production and lower the price of his product and retain his current workers to avoid turnover.  The fact that they would buy his product was an added bonus.  He did not make his decision based on the betterment of workers but on his own profit margin.  And even when he did give the 5 dollar a day bonus he was still a coont about it by having his goons check in on his employees and make sure they were good Americans.
 
2013-07-31 02:38:36 PM  

phaseolus: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


Either you're willfully ignorant, or dense, or a troll.

Whatever the case, you're not worth reading. You make this place worse just by showing up. To the ignore list with you.


Why do the same people keep telling me this? Is this just supposed to make me feel bad?

If you're really putting me on ignore, why do you keep responding?
 
2013-07-31 02:38:57 PM  

Aristocles: Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?


You might want to dig up Reagan and Thatcher and ask why they supported Pinochet.

And you gotta love this Kissinger quote - "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

I guess a dictator is better than people actually voting and determining their own destiny.

/Why hasn't Kissinger been tried as a war criminal yet?
 
2013-07-31 02:43:59 PM  
coeyagi:

Login: coeyagi (UltraFark) (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 470037
Account created: 2009-04-22 14:47:54

Uh oh, folks. Looks like we got another one of these! Don't you see how I've emboldened the account created date?

Gotta discount everything this guy says.
 
2013-07-31 02:45:59 PM  
Time for a troll purge here on Fark, I think. Of course, if fark just provided the IP addresses for users in their profiles, we'd police it ourselves.
 
2013-07-31 02:47:20 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.

Sure, he was a shiat bag.  But the notion that Ford "raised wages" is kind of a myth. What's more of a myth is that he did it out of some benevolent obligation to the plight of workers.

Ford had his goons actually go to people's houses and make sure they were being "Americanized".  This was a stipulation of the "raised wage".  They made sure you spoke english, didn't gamble or drink and made sure you avoided union organizations.  Oh and women weren't eligible unless they were single and the sole caretaker of a family, and men were not eligible if their wives worked outside of the home.

Now why did Ford create this $5 dollar a day bonus (not raise)?  To increase production and lower the price of his product and retain his current workers to avoid turnover.  The fact that they would buy his product was an added bonus.  He did not make his decision based on the betterment of workers but on his own profit margin.  And even when he did give the 5 dollar a day bonus he was still a coont about it by having his goons check in on his employees and make sure they were good Americans.


More distractions.

You cannot escape the fact that paying people a good wage not only makes you successful, it makes everyone in the chain successful. Auto workers spend their money elsewhere, which makes the people elsewhere successful enough to buy a car also. The people drive their cars elsewhere and spend their money there, and on and on and on  You can blather about Ford's personal idiosyncrasies all day but you cannot deny the fact that the base theory is sound with a proven record of success. Yes, it was profit driven but it worked and everyone benefited, even those who didn't work directly for the auto industry.
 
2013-07-31 02:48:13 PM  

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?

You might want to dig up Reagan and Thatcher and ask why they supported Pinochet.

And you gotta love this Kissinger quote - "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

I guess a dictator is better than people actually voting and determining their own destiny.

/Why hasn't Kissinger been tried as a war criminal yet?


Just because we tried to teach Pinochet about Austrian economics, doesn't mean it had any effect.
 
2013-07-31 02:54:56 PM  

Geotpf: The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote)


Also remember that that "control" was predicated on the idea that guys like Joe Lieberman (who singlehandedly killed the public option) and Bill Nelson (anyone remember the Cornhusker Kickback?) would vote with the Dems. So, to actually exercise that "control", the Dems had to cater to them.
 
2013-07-31 02:55:56 PM  

Geotpf: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.


So we can blame congress for all of Bush's gigantic blunders too?
 
2013-07-31 02:59:30 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Time for a troll purge here on Fark, I think. Of course, if fark just provided the IP addresses for users in their profiles, we'd police it ourselves.


Agreed on all counts.
Back to reddit!
 
2013-07-31 03:04:22 PM  

zappaisfrank: More distractions.

You cannot escape the fact that paying people a good wage not only makes you successful, it makes everyone in the chain successful. Auto workers spend their money elsewhere, which makes the people elsewhere successful enough to buy a car also. The people drive their cars elsewhere and spend their money there, and on and on and on You can blather about Ford's personal idiosyncrasies all day but you cannot deny the fact that the base theory is sound with a proven record of success. Yes, it was profit driven but it worked and everyone benefited, even those who didn't work directly for the auto industry.


Idiosyncrasies and distractions!? Really? He was the farking Rumpelstiltskin of job creators with all that shiat stipulations he had in order to be "eligible" for the bonus.

Not everyone benefited.  The decision to create the $5 a day bonus was due to the fact of the 400% turnover rate at the Ford plants. Further, ten thousand unemployed stood freezing in the snow outside the gates begging for a job.  What did Ford do? Turned the fire hoses on them.

Then by 1927 Ford was done producing the model T.  So he closed down the Dearborn, MI plant leaving 60,000 workers jobless.  3,000 of those old employees marched to the new factory in 1932 in River Rouge demanding a job.  What did St. Ford do used the police and goons to open fire on them killing 4 and wounding countless others.  Workers on the job at Ford plants rarely talked even on breaks out of fear that they might talk to a management spy and lose their job.

Conditions were horrendous and people stayed on the job because they NEEDED the job as this was happening during the Great Depression.

He was an iron fisted pro-business, anti-semite, ant-labor zealot who did more harm than good for labor. He did do wonders for capitalism, as you have suggested.
 
2013-07-31 03:05:21 PM  

Aristocles: Just because we tried to teach Pinochet about Austrian economics, doesn't mean it had any effect.


lol

/I will never ignore you :-D
 
2013-07-31 03:08:23 PM  

FlashHarry: so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)


No matter what he does you will be there to blindly follow him.
 
2013-07-31 03:14:55 PM  

Nemo's Brother: FlashHarry: so this week, obama is a plutocrat tool of wall street! (last week he was the libbiest lib who ever libbed!)

No matter what he does you will be there to blindly follow him.


nothing to add to the income gap? just coming in to make some ridiculous comment?
 
2013-07-31 03:18:08 PM  

DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:

abearsrant.com

Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"???  I wish.
 
2013-07-31 03:21:44 PM  

Jairzinho: Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"??? I wish.


I'd actually put the Democratic party on the right-center side of the spectrum.
 
2013-07-31 03:24:31 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


This.
 
2013-07-31 03:25:28 PM  
Ah, so this is that wonderful time of year when Brave Capitalists acknowledge the growing income gap AND admit it is a bad thing (since they can try to pin it on Obama).  This is a short season, once Autumn rolls around we'll be back to proclaiming that the American poor aren't really poor because of their weight problems and color television.
 
2013-07-31 03:26:01 PM  
FarkedOver:
Conditions were horrendous and people stayed on the job because they NEEDED the job as this was happening during the Great Depression.

You mean kinda like now, where the pro-business right has gained so much political and economic advantage that they basically hold the American economy hostage? Like that?

He was an iron fisted pro-business, anti-semite, ant-labor zealot who did more harm than good for labor. He did do wonders for capitalism, as you have suggested.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union  which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.
 
2013-07-31 03:28:16 PM  

karmaceutical: Ah, so this is that wonderful time of year when Brave Capitalists acknowledge the growing income gap AND admit it is a bad thing (since they can try to pin it on Obama).  This is a short season, once Autumn rolls around we'll be back to proclaiming that the American poor aren't really poor because of their weight problems and color television.


and fridgerators.
 
2013-07-31 03:28:38 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: coeyagi: Prove that the poor are better off.

THEY HAVE REFRIGERATORS!!1!

...what more proof do you need, lib-u-lardo?


and many of them have even cell phones, and not any cell phones mind you, but OBAMAPHONES!!1!!
 
2013-07-31 03:32:55 PM  

zappaisfrank: Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.


What's good for the goose (capitalism) is not good for the gander (working people).  I rest my case on the 60,000 he laid off and left destitute and opening a new factory with fewer workers.  He always had profit in mind, no matter how much he paid his workers, he was never good for the working class and set the labor movement back years.
 
2013-07-31 03:36:24 PM  

FarkedOver: Jairzinho: Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"??? I wish.

I'd actually put the Democratic party on the right-center side of the spectrum.


Agreed. I'm only mid-left and I can't even see the Democrats from where I'm standing, they're so far right.

img.fark.net

And for comparison:

www.politicalcompass.org
 
2013-07-31 03:37:29 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.

What's good for the goose (capitalism) is not good for the gander (working people).  I rest my case on the 60,000 he laid off and left destitute and opening a new factory with fewer workers.  He always had profit in mind, no matter how much he paid his workers, he was never good for the working class and set the labor movement back years.


60.000 workers compared to 22 million jobs that have been outsourced in the last couple of decades? Hmm, looks a little lopsided to me.

I'm curious to know how the various plant closures and mergers orchestrated by Bain Capital type investment groups is significantly different from what you berate Ford for doing?
 
2013-07-31 03:39:00 PM  

zappaisfrank: 60.000 workers compared to 22 million jobs that have been outsourced in the last couple of decades? Hmm, looks a little lopsided to me.

I'm curious to know how the various plant closures and mergers orchestrated by Bain Capital type investment groups is significantly different from what you berate Ford for doing?


You're comparing Ford manufacturing of the 20s to the 40s to the last couple of decades.  That's a little bullshiat, no?
 
2013-07-31 03:54:10 PM  

Aristocles: karmaceutical: Ah, so this is that wonderful time of year when Brave Capitalists acknowledge the growing income gap AND admit it is a bad thing (since they can try to pin it on Obama).  This is a short season, once Autumn rolls around we'll be back to proclaiming that the American poor aren't really poor because of their weight problems and color television.

and fridgerators.


Boring new troll alt is boring.
 
2013-07-31 03:58:10 PM  

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: 60.000 workers compared to 22 million jobs that have been outsourced in the last couple of decades? Hmm, looks a little lopsided to me.

I'm curious to know how the various plant closures and mergers orchestrated by Bain Capital type investment groups is significantly different from what you berate Ford for doing?

You're comparing Ford manufacturing of the 20s to the 40s to the last couple of decades.  That's a little bullshiat, no?


Actually, no. Unemployed is unemployed. In both scenarios, the objective is profit. It doesn't matter if it was eighty years ago or ten years ago. The difference I see is that Ford then, as today, still employs workers on American soil. The Bain type groups took the money and left devastated communities in their wake without a care. Again, we see that Ford's motives, while profit based, also considered the wider ranging effects on their potential customers, AKA the American working class. Bain, not so much.
 
2013-07-31 04:00:01 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.


Nobody wanted to jump on this? Claiming that the Soviets weren't communists? What about the American communist party that supported them? Were they communists? What about Marx, did he advocate Communism?

No true Communist?

zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?


I said it pretty plainly.
 
2013-07-31 04:02:18 PM  

DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]


Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.
 
2013-07-31 04:04:12 PM  

zappaisfrank: Actually, no. Unemployed is unemployed. In both scenarios, the objective is profit. It doesn't matter if it was eighty years ago or ten years ago. The difference I see is that Ford then, as today, still employs workers on American soil. The Bain type groups took the money and left devastated communities in their wake without a care. Again, we see that Ford's motives, while profit based, also considered the wider ranging effects on their potential customers, AKA the American working class. Bain, not so much.


The point is Bain type groups couldn't have existed as they exist now at that time.  We were pretty much the only manufacturing dynamo left as a result of two world wars.  Now that industry has steadily improved from the end of the second world war, capitalism is looking else where for it's manufacturing needs as America isn't the only place that can do it any more.

Further, it has been easier to improve off shoring of jobs and capital as technology has improved.  It's a completely different world than it was at that point.  Had Ford had the technology to produce his products cheaper and not in America he would have in a second.  With the advent of NAFTA it's not a guarantee that all Ford parts are made in the USA any more.
 
2013-07-31 04:09:47 PM  

AeAe: weddingsinger: Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.

That is clearly an unsustainable trend.  We can't keep funneling all the wealth to ultra wealthy.


My question is: Who are the 6%?  Because if they're 20-somethings just out of college with $100K in student debt trying to pay rent through "artistic expression", yeah that's expected.  If they're 20-somethings, that's fairly normal.  Because the system is designed to utterly screw you until about 5 years out of college (The way financial aid works, the student isn't actually allowed to make any money in college, and then you get out and you're competing with 40-somethings with 20 years of experience and double your pay for the same real estate, so saving is really farking hard.  I've got over a quarter of my takehome going to nothing but debts, and another 30% to rent and I'm making 2x what my parents are.).

The problem is if they're still in the 6% years and years and years from now unto eternity (and more importantly, if their kids are trapped there indefinitely as well).

/And oh hey, there's 11 million illegal immigrants helping to ensure that the average wage for Hispanics in Silicon Valley is $19000/year in a land of $2000+/month rents.  That's 3% of your 6% right there.
 
2013-07-31 04:09:48 PM  
IBD: WorldNutDaily with bigger words.
 
2013-07-31 04:09:54 PM  

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?

I said it pretty plainly.


So you don't know what the hell you're saying, either?
 
2013-07-31 04:12:00 PM  
When things are already heading downhill and the Republicans have cut the brake lines the finish in the race to the bottom is only a matter time.
 
2013-07-31 04:26:40 PM  

meat0918: DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]

Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.


The first one cites W. Cleon Skousen, John Birch Society heavyweight and Glenn Beck mentor of sorts (not sure which is more damning), so I'mma guess it's an accurate reflection of what the far right thinks and just as reality-based as you'd expect.
 
2013-07-31 04:28:23 PM  
This guy is a lousy socialist Bilderberg plant.
 
2013-07-31 04:31:06 PM  
Again, I ask, why won't the Democrats do something about the problems that Republican's don't care about?
 
2013-07-31 04:43:50 PM  
Mrbogey:

zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?

I said it pretty plainly.


Translation-I'm not going to answer your question because I honestly can't. I just like being purposely arbitrary.
 
2013-07-31 05:01:03 PM  

Yellow Beard: Geotpf: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.

So we can blame congress for all of Bush's gigantic blunders too?


One of the few things a President can do without direct approval from Congress is to bomb another country, and the invasion of Iraq was easily the biggest blunder that Bush made.  And, yes, we can blame Congress on a more minor level for passing a bill that said they approved, but said bill was mostly optional, frankly.  I frankly believe that the fact that Clinton and Kerry both voted for said bill is the reason why neither ever became President.

Passing a budget or any other law is different; the first stop is Congress and if they don't approve the law isn't going anywhere.
 
2013-07-31 05:03:14 PM  

meat0918: DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]

Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.


The first is from American Stinker
 
2013-07-31 05:43:10 PM  

nocturnal001: zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

HAHAHAHAHA

Care to elaborate on why that comment is so "funny"?

A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?

That really depends if he is thinking long run or short run.

Short run it makes perfect business sense to outsource all of your production as you can still take advantage of relatively "wealthy" Americans to buy your products.  In the long run that is a losing proposition and as history shows ends up with your head on a pike.

For me, what I'm most pissed off about is that although I'm far from the .1 or 1%, being a top 5%-er will mean that the schlubs will cut off my head as well.


Save yourself! Work tirelessly with all the vast resources available to you to improve the economic life of your lessers. I believe FDR made the same argument to his era's very wealthy: My programs are the only thing standing between you and an angry mob.

/ it might take a few angry mobs tearing bankers apart before they get the hint.
// that would probably be a good thing
 
2013-07-31 05:44:03 PM  

DarwiOdrade: So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?


So was Clinton.
 
2013-07-31 05:51:46 PM  
Okay, so Obama is building the Democrat political base. If Americans are well off they will voted for a party that says "We want you to keep your money." The more Americans are struggling, the more they are willing to vote for a party that says "We will take money away from rich people and give it to you."  Thus, the ideal long-term Democrat strategy is to widen the income gap as much as possible and push as many people as possible onto the lowest rungs. This will build their voter base. Widespread prosperity is bad for long-term Democratic party dominance, since once people have money, they want to keep it. However, crushing everyone is also bad for Democrats, since it is harder to play the class war card during elections. Thus, Democrats must maintain a despised wealthy scapegoat class that's not too large and a large impoverished (but not toooo impoverished--that makes people stop voting, altogether) mass to hate the wealthy and keep voting for Democrats.

Note that this has nothing at all to do with "moral" issues. This is where the Republican strategy comes in, and it can dovetail nicely with the Democrat strategy. After all, if you are demonized by Democrats, you will donate to Republicans. Republicans then work issues of race and "morality, which are much stronger in many voters' minds when they are economically weak. In essence, if a lot of people are materially comfortable, they're a lot more willing to just let everybody else do whatever they want to. If belt-tightening becomes a regular event, then it becomes very easy to compensate for feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness by focussing on race, "moral" issues, or other "wedge" issues.

Thus, it is in the best interests of both major political parties for the income gap to widen in the USA.
 
2013-07-31 05:53:11 PM  

FlashHarry: SpankMeJohnny: Obama's goal is not to improve the lives of the poor, it is to make them dependent on big government. That in itself is a form of enslavement.

SpankMeJohnny
Account created:    2013-07-05 12:32:39

oh, look - another one!


I can ignore that troll in one post, Alex!
 
2013-07-31 06:10:03 PM  
"121% of the gains in real income during Obama's recovery have gone to the top 1%."

 ?? So... the top 1% got 21% MORE gains than 100% of the gains? Do I need some coffee, or is that phrased poorly?

I mean I know that football players GIVE 120%, but I didn't realize the team owners TOOK 121%.
 
2013-07-31 06:15:35 PM  
I blame Obama's socialism. The comments on that article do as well, and comments on an Investors.com website have to be from well-rounded, educated people.
 
2013-07-31 06:19:19 PM  

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: I am not sure what you mean by criminal profits.

The totally unregulated derivatives market, for starters, loans issued without regard to risk in order to be packaged and sold, rating investments at AAA for investors, including the pension funds you mentioned, while dumping their holdings in anticipation of a crash, manipulating the Libor rate to generate hundreds of millions as money flies around from bank to bank, high frequency trading that uses supercomputers to basically generate money out of thin air

The problem is that most of these things are not technically criminal, because the banks and their cohorts own the politicians and regulators who get to decide what is criminal.  These people make massive short term profits, while pumping up bubbles that will inevitably pop, causing severe economic crises that affect regular people, while the TBTF criminal organizations get taxpayer subsidized bailouts.

Having a supposedly democratic system be controlled by a small group of moneyed interests to the point that they are able to crash the economy to line their pockets with quarterly profits is bad for everyone.  I don't understand how people have difficulty seeing this.


No, not everyone. Just those of us temporarily not extremely wealthy. The TBTF banksters? Yeah, they made record bonuses by crashing the economy.
 
2013-07-31 06:25:55 PM  

qorkfiend: Geotpf: The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote)

Also remember that that "control" was predicated on the idea that guys like Joe Lieberman (who singlehandedly killed the public option) and Bill Nelson (anyone remember the Cornhusker Kickback?) would vote with the Dems. So, to actually exercise that "control", the Dems had to cater to them.


Or strip them of all chairmanships and power, move them into basement "offices" near the furnaces and shame them publicly and often. I guess catering to them worked pretty well though.. Thanks, Reid.
 
2013-07-31 06:34:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: "121% of the gains in real income during Obama's recovery have gone to the top 1%."

 ?? So... the top 1% got 21% MORE gains than 100% of the gains? Do I need some coffee, or is that phrased poorly?

I mean I know that football players GIVE 120%, but I didn't realize the team owners TOOK 121%.


Basically, the continued collapse in unskilled employment (ie: Replacement with robots/chinamen) combined with the rise in temp labor combined with the introduction of millions of unskilled laborers to create a new bottom 5-10% (so everyone gets a nudge up in the rankings, but the rankings themselves fall fairly hard) has led to a decrease in total income for the poorest 80th percentiles of Americans.

In the meantime, the super-rich have been taking advantage of automation/China/a massive oversupply of unskilled labor and economies of scale amongst the skilled labor to become even richer.
 
2013-07-31 06:38:12 PM  

meyerkev: Basically, the continued collapse in unskilled employment (ie: Replacement with robots/chinamen) combined with the rise in temp labor combined with the introduction of millions of unskilled laborers to create a new bottom 5-10% (so everyone gets a nudge up in the rankings, but the rankings themselves fall fairly hard) has led to a decrease in total income for the poorest 80th percentiles of Americans.

In the meantime, the super-rich have been taking advantage of automation/China/a massive oversupply of unskilled labor and economies of scale amongst the skilled labor to become even richer.


Yeah. I meant more "how can they have gained MORE than 100% of the total gains" and is this Yogi Berra math?

I get the part that everyone else's income has dropped .4% part easy.
 
2013-07-31 07:25:04 PM  
Listening to Americans talk about politics is like watching a dog try to operate a mass spectrometer.
 
2013-07-31 07:35:40 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Listening to Americans talk about politics is like watching a dog try to operate a mass spectrometer.


Yet we're the envy of the world. Go figure.

/Suck it, rest of the world!
 
2013-07-31 08:14:42 PM  
The My Little Pony Killer
You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."

cdn.breitbart.com
Bad cop

images.politico.com
Good cop
 
2013-07-31 08:16:54 PM  

Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?


oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.
 
2013-07-31 09:19:37 PM  

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


Are you here to tell us about how he lied about promising to improve the economy, or would you like to tell us how a PhD in Religious  History is not the same thing as a PhD in history of religion? Or should we really dredge up the past and discuss the lies that are rampant in the distinctions between an act of terror and a terrorist act?

And why not use your real name? You know, posting under an alternate identity is, after all, a kind of lie.
 
2013-07-31 10:19:02 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.


the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*
 
2013-07-31 11:06:53 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.


Oh look another moron who doesn't know what a progressive is.  Even for you that comment was stupid.
 
2013-07-31 11:07:43 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Dusk-You-n-Me: It may or may not surprise you that some of Obama's fiercest critics are those to his left.

Yeah, real liberals. People that have the balls to both call themselves and promote liberal ideals. Progressives are nothing more than scared school children who no longer want to be called liberal because being a proud liberal became too hard.


Vaguely reminds me of Iranians who prefer to call themselves Persian.
 
2013-07-31 11:21:12 PM  

the_dude_abides: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.

the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*


Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal? (after he became unpopular of course)

Well let's see. Obama is pro business, lukewarm on progressive social issues, and loves dropping bombs on brown people. Not really the picture of a classical liberal.

Good luck in 2016
 
2013-07-31 11:54:19 PM  

nocturnal001: Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal?


His economic policies were your run of the mill statist, which most presidents since Ike have been to begin with.  Using big government to promote conservative ideas doens't make one a conservative.

Fart_Machine: Oh look another moron who doesn't know what a progressive is.  Even for you that comment was stupid


I know exactly what a progressive is.   All we hear about is how the Constitution is a document of "Negative liberties" how taxes arent high enough, Obamacare is a restrained, moderate solution to healthcare reform and there isn't enough spending on works projects.  Those are clearly policies of radically conservative administrations.  you're right.  I think that was Goldwater's platform in '64 wasn't it?

If you simply didn't know, you might have an excuse but the fact that you've probable been exposed to what progressivism is and cant draw the parallel is perhaps the saddest thing of all.  it isn't just that you dont know but that you're so affirmed in how right you think you are.
 
2013-08-01 12:13:16 AM  

o5iiawah: Those are clearly policies of radically conservative administrations.


Have you been sniffing glue again?  Nobody said he was a "radical conservative" but he's simply not a progressive.  Obama is a moderate centrist.  If you believe he's truly a radical liberal then it just shows how far over the edge you really are.

o5iiawah: Using big government to promote conservative ideas doens't make one a conservative.


He wasn't a True Scotsman either.

o5iiawah: I know exactly what a progressive is.


Sure you do.  According to your definition Reagan was progressive.  It just shows how far right the Republican party has gone in the past thirty years.
 
2013-08-01 01:45:21 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

Are you here to tell us about how he lied about promising to improve the economy, or would you like to tell us how a PhD in Religious  History is not the same thing as a PhD in history of religion? Or should we really dredge up the past and discuss the lies that are rampant in the distinctions between an act of terror and a terrorist act?

And why not use your real name? You know, posting under an alternate identity is, after all, a kind of lie.


He keeps leaving...
 
2013-08-01 02:00:45 AM  
Except that the bottom point was in early 2010, and since then (the actual Obama recovery in any rational sense, he could hardly be expected to reverse things instantly) median incomes have risen substantially. It is almost as if the article is a pack of disingenuous lies!
 
2013-08-01 05:10:49 AM  

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.


Oh god, my irony meter just farking exploded.

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: Care to elaborate or just drop a bumper sticker and run?

I said it pretty plainly.


Aye, and that's the problem.  It's inaccurate, simplistic, buzzword fodder for bumper stickers.

Mrbogey: AurizenDarkstar: Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.

Nobody wanted to jump on this? Claiming that the Soviets weren't communists? What about the American communist party that supported them? Were they communists? What about Marx, did he advocate Communism?

No true Communist?


And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't really democratic or a republic.  I'd say the Soviets were dissimilar enough from other flavors, so to speak, of communism that  AurizenDarkstar'spoint has merit.

For example, I've heard the USSR described as the world's largest corporation.  The entire state and economy was controlled by a singlehierarchical, authoritarian, bureaucracy.  There are definitely some interesting parallels between a typical corporation and Stalinism.
 
2013-08-01 05:47:27 AM  

nocturnal001: the_dude_abides: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.

the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*

Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal? (after he became unpopular of course)

Well let's see. Obama is pro business, lukewarm on progressive social issues, and loves dropping bombs on brown people. Not really the picture of a classical liberal.

Good luck in 2016


I think we can safely say that nobody wants him.  Who's up for an impeachment?
 
2013-08-01 09:04:20 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Gyrfalcon: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

Are you here to tell us about how he lied about promising to improve the economy, or would you like to tell us how a PhD in Religious  History is not the same thing as a PhD in history of religion? Or should we really dredge up the past and discuss the lies that are rampant in the distinctions between an act of terror and a terrorist act?

And why not use your real name? You know, posting under an alternate identity is, after all, a kind of lie.

He keeps leaving...


If you must know, my other login is waaaaaaay more troll-y than this one. I don't post under it on the regular because it's too specialized, it's "Creepy Ass-Cracka"

Unless it's a Zimmerman thread, no one is going to take me seriously using that login.

The reason I posted that comment is contained within the comment itself. I was pointing out a fallacy in the thinking of those unversed in economics.
 
2013-08-01 09:29:23 AM  

tbeatty: nocturnal001: the_dude_abides: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.

the dimwits are plumbing new depths of idiocy with the whole "hay guys obammy is a center right conservative" thing

*most dramatic facepalm ever*

Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal? (after he became unpopular of course)

Well let's see. Obama is pro business, lukewarm on progressive social issues, and loves dropping bombs on brown people. Not really the picture of a classical liberal.

Good luck in 2016

I think we can safely say that nobody wants him.  Who's up for an impeachment?


President Biden?

Awesome. He was my pick from the start.
 
2013-08-02 01:12:56 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.

The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?

Dude, stop trying to re-write history.  Fletch isn't going to happen.


Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

But yeah, Democrats totally blocked it from passing.

/Sure, there were a bunch of Democrats from the South that voted against it.
 
Displayed 341 of 341 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report