Why do Republicans lobby on behalf of people who live like royalty?

Yes, there may be a tiny minority who truly do not want to work. I believe, however, that most people on welfare would like to work, if given the opportunity. Why? Because work gives you social status and respect.

The problem, though, is that the opportunity is not there. Well, you say unemployment is at a record low, so there should be plenty opportunity. Let me explain: The OFFICIAL unemployment number is low, but the labor force participation rate (LFPR) has barely budged. This means that there is a significant pool of people who have given up looking for work. This has two implications:
1) It keeps wages down because the large pool of unemployed is still there, i.e. putting pressure on the employed to not ask for raises.
2) It is still unlikely for people on the sidelines to get a job. Why? Because people in hiring positions look for past history as a predictor of the future. If they see a few years of unemployment, it immediately raises a red flag. Many rather keep the position unfilled rather than take a risk with someone who hasn't been able to find work for years. That makes a lot of these people basically unemployable, thanks to the great recession.

 

Thanks for posting this. Admire your husbands values.

 

Yep I see money hidden in all of those issues...except maybe the one you refer to as "Protection of innocent life".
That ones more of a smoke screen effect.

 

This is the question that the OP should answer: Why do Democrats lobby on behalf of people who live like royalty?

 

Well, I guess it’s clear you are the one who’s obsessed with money. Thanks for coming out and admitting it.

 

Because they fight for the little people. You can be wealthy and care about others.

 

Unlike the freedom-hating right, progressives believe in liberty and justice for all, not just some.

This is what right-wing socialist would say.............
Steve Mnuchin admits Trump’s promise of middle class tax cut isn’t a focus of the administration

 

Well, maybe not many, but you just heard it from me. I don’t own a MAGA hat though.

 

I guess it depends on whether that wealthy person belongs to the acceptable party?

Man is that empty thinking....

 

Save the Progressive pap and lies for fellow cult members.

Liberty and justice for all?

Right, as long as you toe the line, and bow to the agenda. Don't kiss the ring? Get ready for the consequences.

Progs will try to destroy both personally and professionally, chase you and your family out of restaurants, and force you to hide in your own home as they pound on the door.

You want to try and deny that?

 

That’s as stupid as saying somebody who is against abortion should adopt children

 

At least we don’t wear white hoods and swatzikas

 

What does this have to do with condemnation of wealthy people, unless they kiss the liberal ring?

 

LOL

Thanks for proving the point.

In other words, if you don't toe the Progressive line, you're a Nazi who needs to be destroyed.

 

Agreed...Rush don't get near enough credit for the present political problems.
Would like to see some sort of graph indicating the state of affairs in this country
and elsewhere before and after Rush.

 

Exactly...I believe this was one of their favorite fantasies...

"Trickle-down economics assumes investors, savers, and company owners are the real drivers of growth. It promises they’ll use any extra cash from tax cuts to expand businesses. Investors will buy more companies or stocks. Banks will increase lending. Owners will invest in their operations and hire workers. All of this expansion will trickle down to workers. They will spend their wages to drive demand and economic growth."

Am curious as to how and why all that "Trickle" ended up in China.

 

Do you think we’d all be progressives if not for Rush?

 

Can you give an example of how Rush helped you to be a progressive?

 

Ha ha. I do appreciate your sense of humor.

Do you think everyone would be a progressive if Rush had stuck to MLB instead of starting a talk show?

How would things be better today?

 

I thought you would be smart enough to realizes I was mocking your assumption by saying someone as silly...my bad

 

Sorry

 

I don't know what would be different, but it would be interesting to see some data on that.

 

I agree it would be interesting but how do you gather data on a negative? No experimental/control dynamics and it’s meaningless supposition.

You could claim he’s responsible for the predicted aids epidemic not materializing for example.

Do you think we should just have Pravda with no dissenting opinions? Aren’t competing ideas beneficial?

I think outfits like Vox are almost always wrong but I don’t think they are responsible for this country’s or any country’s problems.

It’s cute to say everyone who believes certain things does so because a radio personality told them to. But it’s an odd claim. Really it’s either projection or a thinly veiled assertion conservatives are too stupid to think for themselves.

 

Just some data without all the extremes you've listed above.
Like for instance....number of Red votes vs Blue votes prior to Rush.
Or... most popular political issues before and after Rush.
Or the amount of false news claims before and after Rush.
Or the amount of so called Christians who vote Republican before and after Rush.
Or gun sales before and after Rush.
Or how about the severity of the "us vs them" idea before Rush?

 

Sounds like a a powerful guy. I always saw him as an opportunist. Just pontificating on subjects important to engaged people. More like a sportscaster color guy than a “player”.