The Idiot-in-Chief is at it again.

Mike Pence?

 

I can't wait until ultra conservative Mike Pence is POTUS. An actual Republican in the White House, what a treat, and he rabid lefties think Trump is a problem for them, just wait.

 

Even a homophobic religoid like Pence would be an improvement over the moron who folks voted for.

 

Give Trump a Democratic Congress to ass kiss and Trump wouldn't be a problem, . . .for them. Trump would sign anything to keep from getting impeached.

Unless the Republican powers that be really believe they can win in November, they don't have long to get Trump out and Pence in.

 

Oh boy I sincerely hope you get to test your comment.
Saved, greased, and ready to insert into every negative post you ever construct regarding President Mike Pence.

 

It's not like he was able to turn Indiana into The Handmaid's Tale. He was only a lousy unpopular governor who had little chance of reelection when Trump picked him.

He'd be adequate.

 

That works too, welcome Brother!

 

See you becoming more acceptant everyday

 

Gee where have I heard that? Oh I remember, yesterday and EVERY day since Trump took office LMFAO

 

If you've mistaken that as an endorsement of Pence you are wrong.

 

Oh no you haven't. I'm the first person on this board to bring it up.

 

Along with higher prices. The very people who voted for donald because he was "for them" are about to get screwed again.

 

They would have gotten higher prices back then also. We can have higher prices and "Made in the US" or lower prices and "Made in China". Pick your poison.

 

False dichotomy. We should have lower prices and better paying jobs.

But not as long as the conservatives retain power with their top priority of pampering the richest and diverting more and more of the national income to them.

 

That is the false dichotomy. If it costs more to produce something as with higher wages, the cost of production goes up. That is why Walmart was buying the less expensive Chinese products to start with.

As I have pointed out before, if you took all of the Walmart's CEOs pay and distributed it among all the workers, it would add less than a penny per hour to their pay. We could argue from now to eternity about how much the CEO should be paid, but his effect on the pay of the workers is insignificant.

 

Can't move Walmart and Burger King service jobs to China.

If you took all the additional income that has been redistributed to the rich and instead used it to increase working American wages and incomes, their wages and median incomes would approximately 30% higher, along with much greater purchasing power, consumption, and economy growth that would entail.

 

Which is why this needs fixing.

Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage is worth less than 50 years ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/21/adj...mum-wage-is-worth-less-than-50-years-ago.html

 

Impeach, you flatter yourself Sir

 

Show me the source.

Keep in mind that part of that income has been earned through investments rather than as salaries. For instance investment in the stock market without which there would be very few jobs for anyone. Or are you saying they should not have that source of income?

 

Not impeach, but the fact that Trump would flip to the Left of Sanders to ingratiate himself with a Democratic Congress to avoid impeachment.

 

Clearly he began targeting Repubs for support since they are susceptible to cons like birtherism and climate science denial. The irony of his success in garnering support by disparaging the truthfulness of the media while being the most dishonest politician in the history of the country is more than thick.

 

Sure.



This chart reflect that the bottom 90% of workers were getting about 65% of gross income in 1980 before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, today, that figure is below 50%. Conversely, the top 10% of income earner's share has grown from about 35% to 50%. The bulk of that has gone to the top 1%.

If the bottom 90% were to get the share they got in 1980, (65%), that would represent a 30% increase of the share they are getting now.

Today, gross personal income is $16.8T. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 Table 2.1

That means the top 10% is getting about $8.4T in income, and the bottom 90% the same.

However, if the bottom 90% where getting the 65% share they were getting in 1980 before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, that would be about $10.9T in income. Or about $2.5T more in income. Each and every year.

So, that's to the re-distribution of income since the Reagan "tickle down" revolution, about $2.5T each and every year is going to the top 10% instead of the bottom 90%.

That's a whole bunch of stimuluses the economy isn't getting.

 

None of that is contrary to what I said. The majority of the income for the wealthiest 1% comes from investments, not salaries. That being the case, do you suggest they not get any return on their investments? Or do you suggest they should not be able to accumulate that wealth to invest?

 

Irrelevant. That investment income comes largely from the greater wealth they were able to accumulate because of the "trickle down" policies that redistributed more and more of the nation's income to them from the bottom 90%.

I suggest we reverse "trickle down" policies.

And certainly one of those would be to tax investments at no lower rate than earned income.

 

Why not?