I was never good at anything...still not.

 

I get a check from BP for mine

 

Wonderful discussion! Lots of animosity and lots of thinking. Each generation -- IMO -- has its trials and tribulations and each generation looks back at succeeding generations and questions their ability to succeed. We all did it. Hopefully, we will all reach that point were we can understand it is not our job to complain about the failures of inabilities of those following us. It is our job to understand what goes into the success and the failure of those who come next and next after them. Our paths to success are not the same paths others should take unless it is what they want. I spent years selling myself on the street to pay for food and lodging. Would I ever say to anyone they should do the same when times are tough? No! I would tell them -- if they could learn from it -- what I did is proof you are bigger than your problems and your problems are YOURS to overcome. I believe life is a motherfucking-son-of-a-bitch and the joy it offers me is the fight against it to succeed. But success has to be defined by each of us for each of us. Only I know how to define my success. And only I know when I fail. As with a few people on this forum, I can quite easily qualify a number of my fellow xnxx members as failed children. I don't do that because my life experiences have taught me not to pre-judge.
As for a professional athlete admitting he had help with his career, good for him. Most of the successful people I have known thanked lots of people for helping them succeed while knowing the help they received came from themselves -- a belief they could succeed if they wanted to badly enough.

 

Okay, now read that and tell me you don't sound like a conspiracy nut.

 

You are blaming what you dislike on what is more commonly disliked. Although incomes in the United States have stagnated or declined for blue collar workers since 1975, and for IT workers since 2000, the rich have gotten richer.

The choice between socialism and capitalism is analog, not binary. Modern economies in affluent economies combine elements of both.

I believe you will agree with me that there is less socialism in the United States than in Scandinavian countries, and in the British Commonwealth.

The Gini index is a measurement of the income distribution of a country's residents. This number, which ranges between 0 and 1 and is based on residents' net income, helps define the gap between the rich and the poor, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing perfect inequality. It is typically expressed as a percentage, referred to as the Gini coefficient.
Gini Index http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gini-index.asp#ixzz4f0rkHZPc
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

According to the CIA World Factbook, the gini index for the United States is 45.0%.
In New Zealand it is 36.2%.
In the United Kingdom it is 32.4%.
In Canada it is 32.1%.
In Australia it is 30.3%.
In Finland it is 26.8%.
In Norway it is 26.8%
In Sweden it is 24.9%.
In Denmark it is 24.8%.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html#us

So, Randy Knight, if socialism is somehow responsible for the growing income gap in the United States, why is it that countries that are more socialist have less economic inequality?

 

Lets start on this list.
$283000 home. We are talking about kids who do not have a job. Have you ever heard about renting? How about a cheap apartment? You can knock off the $141500 interest also.
$500000 for a nice college. How many kids need to go to such a college? Again knock off $75000 interest.
$750 per month car insurance. Buy a cheap car and just get the minimum insurance. You don't even have a job.
$475 per month utilities? You live with your parents.
$1000 per month food bill for two kids. Why in the hell would a kid with no job have two kids?
$500000 retirement fund, again they do not even have a job yet.

You had to sponge off your parents until you were 27? You sound like you are about 16 right now. You need to get off a porn site and get a job.

 

Animosity varies inversely with thinking.

The Master of Facts seldom gets angry because he knows that he is better informed than the posters who get angry at him.

 

because when 85% live in housing projects there is very little gap in equability....

 

plumbers are getting 80 bucks an hour...
master election 125.

In dallas we are paying undocumented Mexicans 20 to 25 an hour for dry-wall work

- Randy Knight

--------

A plumber who has completed his apprenticeship and is able to work on his own without supervision is referred to as a journeyman or journey worker. Wages for journeymen plumbers vary significantly based on their geographic location. Average wages for journeymen plumbers in Oregon were $27.89 per hour as of February 2012, according to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries Wage and Hour Division. Journeymen plumbers in the Washington, D.C., area received $38.17 per hour, according to Plumbers Local 5.
http://work.chron.com/starting-salaries-plumbers-4512.html

Information published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that electricians working in the United States earned an average salary of $52,910 per year and an average wage of $25.44 per hour as of May 2011.
http://work.chron.com/electrician-pay-scale-2043.html

Drywallers earned an average of $41,620 per year and $20.01 per hour as of May 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://work.chron.com/drywallers-make-year-2382.html

 

I was a journeyman electrician until I got my masters. Different areas pay quite a bit different. Not al places pay scale. Some have to go much higher to het workers.
Some jobs allow unlimited overtime and a great per deim.

 

Oh look ---a posting blind man....

 

I doubt that the broadly based economic growth that the U.S. enjoyed from 1945 to 1973 can be restored. If I am right, economic redistribution will become a salient issue.

If the majority decides to tax the well to do and spread the wealth around, this issue will benefit the Democrats. If most whites decide to economically and perhaps politically disenfranchise non whites, possibly including Jews, it will benefit the Republicans.

At any rate, it cannot be said that Republican economic policies promote economic growth for anyone but the upper ten percent of the population.

 

DL if all the money in The USA was given out equal for everyone....
everyone was the same in money and assets.....

in 2 years 20% would have 80% of the money.....

people who are given money mainly throw it away because it has no meaning to them....

And yet the democrats have the richest top level supporters than the republicans.....
Every wonder why wall street backed Hillary....
Not because she was gonna give their money to the poor......

 

Um, spending is the foundation of every economy. That's why we had a recession after 9/11 - people stopped going out and spending money. Do you think money spent goes into a black hole after you spend it?

A better question is....What do you think happens when people have no money to spend?

 

Ok, enjoy the FEMA camp !

 

what does that have to do with what I posted....
do you ever make any sense?

 

Hillary Clinton gave a number of speeches to Wall Street tycoons for $220,000 each. She tried to keep the speeches secret, but several were hacked. In the hacked speeches she said that she favors open borders and no tariffs. In other words, she wants to make it easier for employers to import cheap labor and export good jobs.

During the campaign Donald Trump condemned Wall Street. Nevertheless, a number of his cabinet officials made fortunes there.

The Democrats' strongest issue is the growing income gap. They have not been able to exploit it for two reasons. First, lower income whites do not trust the Democrats on racial issues. They have reason not to, as I have explained in other comments.

The second reason is that Democrat elites like Hillary are on the right side of the income gap. They hope that the Democratic Party can win on social issues alone.

Those Democrat elites are of course mistaken. If the Democrat Party does not win on the economy it will lose on race.

 

People like Sanders not the Democrats because of income gap....

The reason the wall street guy is in the Treasury dept same as with Obama.....Clinton...Bush
Those and not college professors are the smartest in real life maters.....

 

Even at the age of 74 Bernie Sanders beat Trump by larger margins in the polls than did Hillary.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Even before Sanders came along polls indicated that a growing percentage of Americans preferred socialism to capitalism.

https://www.google.com/#q=poll+++socialism+++capitalism

If the Democrats have sense they will run someone like Sanders in the 2020 presidential campaign.

 

Did you read what you wrote? I agree, you often doesn't make sense.