I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism

[rickyb]

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge. NAFTA was signed in1992 under George H.W. Bush. It went into effect on Jan.1, 1994. Clinton wouldn't lose Congress because of Republican sponsored NAFTA. He lost because he tried to enact a bunch of far Left ideas in 1993-1994 that would've increased taxes. Led to the '94 midterm being called "the year of the angry white male." You just said he probably lost Congress because of the far right things he did. Why would Republicans be angry at him doing far right things? No, after he got thumped in the '94 midterm, that made Congress completely Republican for the first time in 40 years, he hired a Republican campaign consultant named Dick Morris who told him he had to advocate a number of Republican policies to have any chance of being reelected. Which is exactly what he did. But he was a centrist, not a right winger.

it was clinton. he is the one blamed.

maybe this is too right wing for right wingers?

 

[rickyb]

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge. NAFTA was signed in1992 under George H.W. Bush. It went into effect on Jan.1, 1994. Clinton wouldn't lose Congress because of Republican sponsored NAFTA. He lost because he tried to enact a bunch of far Left ideas in 1993-1994 that would've increased taxes. Led to the '94 midterm being called "the year of the angry white male." You just said he probably lost Congress because of the far right things he did. Why would Republicans be angry at him doing far right things? No, after he got thumped in the '94 midterm, that made Congress completely Republican for the first time in 40 years, he hired a Republican campaign consultant named Dick Morris who told him he had to advocate a number of Republican policies to have any chance of being reelected. Which is exactly what he did. But he was a centrist, not a right winger.

centrists are liberals. they pass reforms to make capitalism more reasonable. this doesnt look like making capitalism more reasonable to me.

 

[rickyb]

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge. NAFTA was signed in1992 under George H.W. Bush. It went into effect on Jan.1, 1994. Clinton wouldn't lose Congress because of Republican sponsored NAFTA. He lost because he tried to enact a bunch of far Left ideas in 1993-1994 that would've increased taxes. Led to the '94 midterm being called "the year of the angry white male." You just said he probably lost Congress because of the far right things he did. Why would Republicans be angry at him doing far right things? No, after he got thumped in the '94 midterm, that made Congress completely Republican for the first time in 40 years, he hired a Republican campaign consultant named Dick Morris who told him he had to advocate a number of Republican policies to have any chance of being reelected. Which is exactly what he did. But he was a centrist, not a right winger.

i can probably find an article on nader.org saying clinton signed nafta too

clinton was garbage.

 

[rickyb]

Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge. NAFTA was signed in1992 under George H.W. Bush. It went into effect on Jan.1, 1994. Clinton wouldn't lose Congress because of Republican sponsored NAFTA. He lost because he tried to enact a bunch of far Left ideas in 1993-1994 that would've increased taxes. Led to the '94 midterm being called "the year of the angry white male." You just said he probably lost Congress because of the far right things he did. Why would Republicans be angry at him doing far right things? No, after he got thumped in the '94 midterm, that made Congress completely Republican for the first time in 40 years, he hired a Republican campaign consultant named Dick Morris who told him he had to advocate a number of Republican policies to have any chance of being reelected. Which is exactly what he did. But he was a centrist, not a right winger.

see your understanding of history is questionable. the first article i pull up from ralph naders website on clinton and nafta has this:

Canadian Elections and NAFTA - Ralph Nader

Edmonton, Alberta -- The mood of Canadians in this former oil-boom Province borders on the grim and disgruntled. The provincial government has announced a 20% cut in the education budget which has provoked an unusual demonstration before the Parliament building of several thousand objecting high...

nader.org

this is in addition to what ive already shown you about clintons involvement in the biggest blow to american workers in 50 years.

 

[newfie]

i shouldve said close to 50% is too poor which goes with what you posted and i agree btw.

you realize some people are not poor and just choose not to participate in the stock market? but by your argument are you telling me 70 percent of canadians are poor?

 

[newfie]

I have a feeling you don’t know what you’re talking about. As usual.

never let that stop your from making up what you believe

 

[rickyb]

you realize some people are not poor and just choose not to participate in the stock market? but by your argument are you telling me 70 percent of canadians are poor?

im saying close to half of america is poor and therefore they have no money to invest in stocks.

im not an expert on canadian numbers but it could very well be the same or worse.

when you go to work as an employee, you have no say over how much you get paid. the capitalist ulimately decides what to pay you, aside from federal laws. so if you give them that kind of power, they are going to obviously make themselves rich and everyone else poor.

 

[newfie]

they cant.

and even if they could that still wouldnt really change the fact about 10% owning 90% of stock because that 10% gets so much more money.

you realize that ten percent includes mutual funds and retirment funds?

 

[rickyb]

you realize that ten percent includes mutual funds and retirment funds?

no it includes extremely rich people at the top.

you've underestimated how much rich people at the top have to invest

btw heres clinton signing nafta. thanks for defending the truth

 

[newfie]

im saying close to half of america is poor and therefore they have no money to invest in stocks.

you can say that but its not true. for instance you can buy fractional stocks through nerd wallet and it does not take much money at all.

im not an expert on canadian numbers but it could very well be the same or worse.

you're almost there. the problem is you hear a number you like and dont investigate any further

when you go to work as an employee, you have no say over how much you get paid. the capitalist ulimately decides what to pay you, aside from federal laws. so if you give them that kind of power, they are going to obviously make themselves rich and everyone else poor.

you do have control . you go to work build up a strong work history than you go work for someone who pays more .
you go to school and get a high in demand job skill and start your own business or negotiate for a better paying job.

 

[rickyb]

you can say that but its not true. for instance you can buy fractional stocks through nerd wallet and it does not take much money at all.

you're almost there. the problem is you hear a number you like and dont investigate any further


you do have control . you go to work build up a strong work history than you go work for someone who pays more .
you go to school and get a high in demand job skill and start your own business or negotiate for a better paying job.

i agreed said its likely canada is as bad or worse.

why would anyone who is struggling to pay for necessities buy stock?

this is another way of what you just said:

you do have control . you go to work build up a strong work history than you go work for an economic tyranny who pays more .
you go to school and get a high in demand job skill and start your own business or negotiate for a better paying economic tyranny

the parts where it says economic tyranny means a loss of control.

 

[newfie]

no it includes extremely rich people at the top.

simply not true the 10 percent includes mutual funds and retirement funds. a total of 70 percent of the country have savings accounts so some of them do not invest in the stock market but probably invest in it indirectly through their savings accounts.

you've underestimated how much rich people at the top have to invest

i didnt underestimate any thing , nor did you mention the richest 10 percent pay about 90 percent of the taxes. it doesnt fit the narrow gloom and doom you wish to focus on so it does not get mentioned.

 

[newfie]

i agreed said its likely canada is as bad or worse.

why would anyone who is struggling to pay for necessities buy stock?

the problem with the canadian government is it is a socialist system. they take a big chunk of your wage earnings through taxes then graciously give you what they decide you need. If you invest in the stock market you pay a higher rate of taxes on those earnings so you are disincentivised to build wealth.

 

[rickyb]

simply not true the 10 percent includes mutual funds and retirement funds. a total of 70 percent of the country have savings accounts so some of them do not invest in the stock market but probably invest in it indirectly through their savings accounts.

i didnt underestimate any thing , nor did you mention the richest 10 percent pay about 90 percent of the taxes. it doesnt fit the narrow gloom and doom you wish to focus on so it does not get mentioned.

this is all you need to know about stock market ownership

we dont make a ton of money so it goes to say were not going to own a ton of stocks.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html#:~:text=The%20wealthiest%2010%%20of%20Americans%20own%2093%,with%20market%20participation%20at%20a%20record%20high.

 

[rickyb]

the problem with the canadian government is it is a socialist system. they take a big chunk of your wage earnings through taxes then graciously give you what they decide you need. If you invest in the stock market you pay a higher rate of taxes on those earnings so you are disincentivised to build wealth.

theres an american youtuber, he lived in LA, moved to a nordic country. said his take home was the same but in europe there wasnt homeless people, he had health care, the streets were clean or something.

 

[oldngray]

theres an american youtuber, he lived in LA, moved to a nordic country. said his take home was the same but in europe there wasnt homeless people, he had health care, the streets were clean or something.

90% income tax in Sweden.

But they have free health care!

 

[newfie]

we dont make a ton of money so it goes to say were not going to own a ton of stocks.

you ever belong to a 40lk ? you put in what you can afford on a weekly bases and 20 years later you have a lot of money.

speak to something you understand . you keep trying to spin your gloom and doom the rich are screwing us argument when the fact remains many average americans are benifiting from the stock market one little chunk at a time.

 

[rickyb]

90% income tax in Sweden.

But they have free health care!

and higher life expectancy by a long shot, and 70% union rate, and 25 working days of vacation. it might actually be a left wing country which @Box Ox is always freaking out about.

 

[newfie]

theres an american youtuber, he lived in LA, moved to a nordic country. said his take home was the same but in europe there wasnt homeless people, he had health care, the streets were clean or something.

you have what you allow

 

[rickyb]

you ever belong to a 40lk ? you put in what you can afford on a weekly bases and 20 years later you have a lot of money.

speak to something you understand . you keep trying to spin your gloom and doom the rich are screwing us argument when the fact remains many average americans are benifiting from the stock market one little chunk at a time.

top 10% own 93% of all stocks in america

bottom 50% own 1%

its because they have no money to invest in it.