By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why an Obama Presidency is so important: The poor pay more for Necessities

txrattlesnake on 21 May 2009
coolestguyever said:
I understand that the poor can't afford to pay a lot but that doesn't mean we should exploit the rich. With all the programs in place for poor people there is becoming less and less incentive to work hard and become rich, you know your going to be taxed through the ass and get no special treatment.

Also another thing to note: Who is it that's donating large amounts of money to charity? Is it the poor guy who is barely getting by?? No its the rich guy with lots of disposable income. Not only are we being taxed, but the more generous rich people also donate to charity like my father.

 

      Of course when you've got the rich people working hard to make sure that the poorer people don't move up in society where they are in a position to achieve as much as the rich guy or to challenge the rich guy for the same types of good things that he has, then many times if you're the hardest working guy in the company you often won't get the best promotions because many times it comes down to whom is the best toadie or whom it would benefit those that give out job promotions in the eyes of their bosses the most to promote for jobs.  Quite often, the people that deserve the promotions at jobs are passed over for them.

     Its the rich guy of course they get all their donated money back in their income tax returns, so how are they really giving anything to charity?



Around the Network
Viper1 on 21 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:

     For all of their talk about keeping America safe,  the Republicans almost never talk about what can be done to lift the burdens on the poor in this country or how the poor can actually be able to attain a more equal footing in America.  That is why after eight years of a keep the rich rich and do nothing at all for people that make under $50,000.00 a year president that it is so important that at this time we have a president like Barak Obama that really does want to help the poor to elevate themselves in this society.  Whether it is through placing heavier taxes on rich individuals or rich corporations in order to relieve them a bit of their excess wealth and redistribute it to the poor, Obama is the first president in eight years that wants to do something for the benefit of most Americans.

    Today The Washington Post ran a story detailing the plight of the poor in this country.  Poor people in America have to pay a larger percentage of the money that do have on necessities than richer people have to pay for similar services and very often they can't afford things like the most inexpensive automobiles that many of the wealthier citizens take for granted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html?g=0

 

 

 

Actualy Obama is even worse than Bush when it comes to money.

 

Perhaps the poor may make more physical money under Obama but if the money itself has less value, then it's a moot point.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Esmoreit on 21 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:

     For all of their talk about keeping America safe,  the Republicans almost never talk about what can be done to lift the burdens on the poor in this country or how the poor can actually be able to attain a more equal footing in America.  That is why after eight years of a keep the rich rich and do nothing at all for people that make under $50,000.00 a year president that it is so important that at this time we have a president like Barak Obama that really does want to help the poor to elevate themselves in this society.  Whether it is through placing heavier taxes on rich individuals or rich corporations in order to relieve them a bit of their excess wealth and redistribute it to the poor, Obama is the first president in eight years that wants to do something for the benefit of most Americans.

    Today The Washington Post ran a story detailing the plight of the poor in this country.  Poor people in America have to pay a larger percentage of the money that do have on necessities than richer people have to pay for similar services and very often they can't afford things like the most inexpensive automobiles that many of the wealthier citizens take for granted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html?g=0

 

 

 

He is also the only president since 8 years of Bush

 



The Doctor will see you now  Promoting Lesbianism -->

                              

Kasz216 on 21 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:

     For all of their talk about keeping America safe,  the Republicans almost never talk about what can be done to lift the burdens on the poor in this country or how the poor can actually be able to attain a more equal footing in America.  That is why after eight years of a keep the rich rich and do nothing at all for people that make under $50,000.00 a year president that it is so important that at this time we have a president like Barak Obama that really does want to help the poor to elevate themselves in this society.  Whether it is through placing heavier taxes on rich individuals or rich corporations in order to relieve them a bit of their excess wealth and redistribute it to the poor, Obama is the first president in eight years that wants to do something for the benefit of most Americans.

    Today The Washington Post ran a story detailing the plight of the poor in this country.  Poor people in America have to pay a larger percentage of the money that do have on necessities than richer people have to pay for similar services and very often they can't afford things like the most inexpensive automobiles that many of the wealthier citizens take for granted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html?g=0

 

 

 

 

The division between the Rich and Poor increased more under the clinton administration then it did the Bush administration.  It's a statistically proven fact.  I've mentioned it numerous times.

In fact under Bush the division between the rich and the poor stood nearly still.  He was the best president in regards to the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Either Bush cared... or he was so incomptent that he did the exact opposite of what he planned to do.

The moral of the story is.   Presidents rarely practice what they preach... and the "Distributing from the rich to the poor" is code for "Distributing from the rich... to other rich people that give us their money."

     You say the division between the poor and the rich increased more under Clinton than Bush.  However, that might not be the proper question.  The proper question might be how affordable were basic services under Clinton in comparison to how affordable they were under Bush.  It seems that I remember paying $1.00 for gasoline under Clinton but at one point in time more than $4.00 for gasoline under Bush.  I also remember one plan that Bush had where he wanted to make it impossible for patients to sue doctors for medical malpractice.  I don't remember such idiotic plans being proposed under Clinton.

     Well if it was standing still then that means there weren't that many poor people raising up to join the upper classes under Bush.

     Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth to aid the poor.  It is true that he faces much opposition from the wealthy in this endeavor.

 

No... it isn't the right question.   Did you not read the article you posted.... just looked at the title and went "Hey this proves what i want to say!"

The "differences" stated still existed under Clinton.

Clinton had the same rhetoric and had little results.

If you'll notice left wing groups are already slamming Obama on a number of issues for being a "Corporate Democrat" as Corporate Democrats are the head of the Democratic Party now and have been for a while now.  Ever since they realized they needed corporate money to go up against Republican Corporate money.

Also... the rich get richer... just about everywhere.   The reason is... the rich can afford to take greater risks that have greater rewards.

The only way to change this is either make it so rich people are FORCED to take risks to maintain their wealth.  Which is ridiculiously unfair... or to subsidize the poors risk taking... which is ridiculiously stupid.



txrattlesnake on 21 May 2009

I lived under Clinton and I lived under Bush and I had much more expendable income under Clinton than I did under Bush.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 21 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
I lived under Clinton and I lived under Bush and I had much more expendable income under Clinton than I did under Bush.

Not me... so I don't know what to tell you.

Though now I know why your mad.  Simply because things have gotten worse for you.

Explains why you ignore all the actual statistical data.



Viper1 on 21 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
I lived under Clinton and I lived under Bush and I had much more expendable income under Clinton than I did under Bush.

Expendable income doesn't mean anythign if the actual value is decreased.

Say under President A you make $1,000 per week and under President B you make $1,200 per week.  Getting a better deal with President B?  Maybe.  But if the actual value per dollar is decreased then the purhcasing power of that $1,200 under President B will be less than the purchasing power of $1,000 under President A.

Obama is diluting our dollar so mcuh that it's heading for a total collapse.    It's worth about 4 cents compared to 1912 and he's doing all he can to bring it down to 0.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

SamuelRSmith on 21 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
I lived under Clinton and I lived under Bush and I had much more expendable income under Clinton than I did under Bush.

 

 Real income is not really controlled by the Government, more by market forces. As it's increasing demand which causes inflation.

Thinking about it, if what Kasz is saying is true (which I'm pretty sure he is, as I've heard him making the point frequently, sometimes with sources), and the gap between the rich and poor stayed relatively similar under Bush and the American economy grew, this would imply that, on the whole, people had more money to spend, increasing overall demand, and, thus, increasing inflation/reducing real incomes (particularly for those whose figures stayed roughly the same over the eight years).

---

You will also see your prices go up as the dollar gets weaker. The dollar will get weaker as currencies such as the Euro and the Yuan grow, this has less to do with America, and more to do with the rise of other economies. Food prices fluctuate based on harvest, but prices are trending upwards as countries such as China and India are growing economically and are, therefore, demanding more food. Oil prices (which results in everything going up, from plastics to food to fuel) will rise as supply falls.

---

There are some policies that the Government can take out, such as controlling the money supply and interest rates, but those would have only really been changed in any major way since the start of the recession.



Kasz216 on 21 May 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
txrattlesnake said:
I lived under Clinton and I lived under Bush and I had much more expendable income under Clinton than I did under Bush.

 

 Real income is not really controlled by the Government, more by market forces. As it's increasing demand which causes inflation.

Thinking about it, if what Kasz is saying is true (which I'm pretty sure he is, as I've heard him making the point frequently, sometimes with sources), and the gap between the rich and poor stayed relatively similar under Bush and the American economy grew, this would imply that, on the whole, people had more money to spend, increasing overall demand, and, thus, increasing inflation/reducing real incomes (particularly for those whose figures stayed roughly the same over the eight years).

---

You will also see your prices go up as the dollar gets weaker. The dollar will get weaker as currencies such as the Euro and the Yuan grow, this has less to do with America, and more to do with the rise of other economies. Food prices fluctuate based on harvest, but prices are trending upwards as countries such as China and India are growing economically and are, therefore, demanding more food. Oil prices (which results in everything going up, from plastics to food to fuel) will rise as supply falls.

---

There are some policies that the Government can take out, such as controlling the money supply and interest rates, but those would have only really been changed in any major way since the start of the recession.

It's another reason why we should stop subsdizing corporate farmers to make our food more expensive.

It's also why we should stop subsidizing farmland based ethanol.

This is stuff Obama is against because being from Illnois, those are some of his biggest "fans".

Republicans and Democrats are both out to screw people in their political lives.

 



SamuelRSmith on 21 May 2009

Not subsidising your farmers could lead to bigger problems, if food prices increase too much, then firms will start looking into importing more foodstuffs.

Actually, I say: do it. That will help out European farmers. :)