Obama’s Class Warfare

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don't forget these folks:

Well they aren't hugely memorable are they. After all, we don't remember most of the people who worked for Hitler

[LostInAK 43]

After all, we don't remember most of the people who worked for Hitler

Speak for yourself. I have portraits of all of them in my living room.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am not surprised

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Obviously the rich pay more taxes than you do. But they typically pay about half the percentage you do. Cool huh?

I see pictures are too complicated for you.

SMH

[GandD 5,966]

I see pictures are too complicated for you.

SMH

No. It shows how much of the federal income they pay. Not what percentage of their income goes to tax.

[LostInAK 43]

No. It shows how much of the federal income they pay. Not what percentage of their income goes to tax.

I'm not speaking for NB, but I think his point was that the wealthier citizens of this country are already paying way more than their fair share. I suppose it's easier to demonize those that have more, rather than try to do something to make your life better. Remember....it's always someone elses fault. It's the American way.

[GandD 5,966]

I'm not speaking for NB, but I think his point was that the wealthier citizens of this country are already paying way more than their fair share. I suppose it's easier to demonize those that have more, rather than try to do something to make your life better. Remember....it's always someone elses fault. It's the American way.

I just want everyone else to pay the same percentage as me. Isn't that what we all want?

[LostInAK 43]

I just want everyone else to pay the same percentage as me. Isn't that what we all want?

Cool. So you're saying that these low income folks should be paying 25%? Didn't realize you were such a heartless #######. Kudos. Seems we're on the same page.

Edited January 25, 2015 by LostInAK

[GandD 5,966]

Cool. So your saying that these low income folks should be paying 25%? Didn't realize you were such a heartless #######. Kudos. Seems we're on the same page.

Doesn't seem heartless, seems fair. Granted, I think minimum wage should match inflation and that with our current health care system requires more contributions from low wage employers. But those are different discussions for different threads. The important thing here is that we've found common ground.

[LostInAK 43]

Doesn't seem heartless, seems fair. Granted, I think minimum wage should match inflation and that with our current health care system requires more contributions from low wage employers. But those are different discussions for different threads. The important thing here is that we've found common ground.

Keep in mind that simply passing laws that artificially raise wages has consequences. It's not going to be all rainbows and bunnies. That money has to come from somewhere and corporations aren't just going to eat it. They're responsible to their shareholders (owners) I'd expect to see it affect prices.

Since our Irish/Korean friend loves my simple examples, lets have a look see.

Let's say you have a minimum wage brewery worker paying $2 for every 40 ounce bottle of Colt 45. Now if you raise the wages of the worker brewing and bottling that awesome brew, the company has to pass on that extra cost to their customers. So if they raise their wages by 20% and then the brewer raises the price that cold 40 up to $2.40, (that's 20% for you public school grads out there) are they really getting ahead?

In economic terms I think they call that inflation. It means it costs more money to by the same goods/services over time. So while people have this false sense of making more money and the smiling socialist is scoring points with the ignorant electorate, nothing has really changed.

But hey, go ahead and raise the minimum wage. I can afford it. Tough titties to the poor people. Not my problem.

[GandD 5,966]

Keep in mind that simply passing laws that artificially raise wages has consequences. It's not going to be all rainbows and bunnies. That money has to come from somewhere and corporations aren't just going to eat it. They're responsible to their shareholders (owners) I'd expect to see it affect prices.

Since our Irish/Korean friend loves my simple examples, lets have a look see.

Let's say you have a minimum wage brewery worker paying $2 for every 40 ounce bottle of Colt 45. Now if you raise the wages of the worker brewing and bottling that awesome brew, the company has to pass on that extra cost to their customers. So if they raise their wages by 20% and then the brewer raises the price that cold 40 up to $2.40, (that's 20% for you public school grads out there) are they really getting ahead?

In economic terms I think they call that inflation. It means it costs more money to by the same goods/services over time. So while people have this false sense of making more money and the smiling socialist is scoring points with the ignorant electorate, nothing has really changed.

But hey, go ahead and raise the minimum wage. I can afford it. Tough titties to the poor people. Not my problem.

My friend, there are economic concerns when the minimum wage does not follow inflation. Corporations have had their way long enough that they have now in fact created an economy where they "can't afford" to pay what they did some years ago. At the end of the day, I want any game fully employed individual working 40 hours a week at the lowest possible wage to not be a burden on society. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing McDonald's. I don't even want my post tax dollars going to them

Plus 40 points for the colt 45 reference.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Keep in mind that simply passing laws that artificially raise wages has consequences. It's not going to be all rainbows and bunnies. That money has to come from somewhere and corporations aren't just going to eat it. They're responsible to their shareholders (owners) I'd expect to see it affect prices.

Since our Irish/Korean friend loves my simple examples, lets have a look see.

Let's say you have a minimum wage brewery worker paying $2 for every 40 ounce bottle of Colt 45. Now if you raise the wages of the worker brewing and bottling that awesome brew, the company has to pass on that extra cost to their customers. So if they raise their wages by 20% and then the brewer raises the price that cold 40 up to $2.40, (that's 20% for you public school grads out there) are they really getting ahead?

In economic terms I think they call that inflation. It means it costs more money to by the same goods/services over time. So while people have this false sense of making more money and the smiling socialist is scoring points with the ignorant electorate, nothing has really changed.

But hey, go ahead and raise the minimum wage. I can afford it. Tough titties to the poor people. Not my problem.

Your argument might work if the cost of labor was the only input in the cost of production. Many other factors effect the overall cost of the beer. Sorry you that you don't understand, a lot of other probably don't get it either. Edited January 25, 2015 by InKorea

[LostInAK 43]

My friend, there are economic concerns when the minimum wage does not follow inflation. Corporations have had their way long enough that they have now in fact created an economy where they "can't afford" to pay what they did some years ago. At the end of the day, I want any game fully employed individual working 40 hours a week at the lowest possible wage to not be a burden on society. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing McDonald's. I don't even want my post tax dollars going to them

Plus 40 points for the colt 45 reference.

Your tax dollars aren't subsidizing McDonalds or Walmart or anyone else making low wages. That's a govt. trick. The govt. gives these people handouts (food stamps) and then says "SEE, I told you these corporations are EVIL!!!" Odd thing about that:

Since our man in the white house LOVES getting as many folks as possible dependent on govt. this plays right into that. He can say "See! without govt help these people would be starving!!" It's because Walmart is paying their employees bad wages!! I have to ask. How were these people eating in 1998, or in 2002, or in 2004? I must have missed the news headlines back then about all the people dieing from starvation in the U.S.

You've been fooled G. It happens to the best of us.

[LostInAK 43]

Your argument might work if the cost of labor was the only input in the cost of production. Many other factors effect the overall cost of the soda pop. Sorry you that you don't understand, a lot of other probably don't get it either.

I never claimed labor was the ONLY cost. That would be silly. However, it has a huge effect.

Newsflash for you. This is now a global economy. In order to stay competitive, companies have to stay competitive globally. Sorry to say, the days of your mob run unions are over.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Your tax dollars aren't subsidizing McDonalds or Walmart or anyone else making low wages. That's a govt. trick. The govt. gives these people handouts (food stamps) and then says "SEE, I told you these corporations are EVIL!!!" Odd thing about that:

Since our man in the white house LOVES getting as many folks as possible dependent on govt. this plays right into that. He can say "See! without govt help these people would be starving!!" It's because Walmart is paying their employees bad wages!! I have to ask. How were these people eating in 1998, or in 2002, or in 2004? I must have missed the news headlines back then about all the people dieing from starvation in the U.S.

You've been fooled G. It happens to the best of us.

I like how your graph appears to show food stamp use etc, rise in 2008. It's almost as if there was a financial crisis going on? Oh wait, that's right there was.