It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck

page: 14
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yep exactly you can't force that horse to drink the water.





posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

This isn't a philosophy class. Real world economics is a lot more complicated than true and false questions from one of your electives in college. There are literally thousands of laws to protect workers in this country. There are still people that get exploited, and that sucks. All I'm saying is overall we've got it really good here. You may not have it as good as you want it. There's # I want that I don't have because I can't afford it. Tough.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I have to ask, what the hell are people spending their money on? I don't make that much money, yet still have plenty in the bank, and plenty in cash. I don't have children, so I'm wondering, are kids that damn expensive? I don't know how people live paycheck to paycheck, I would die from the worry and stress.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jacobe001
a reply to: face23785

True or False

All parties involved in Capitalism should have bargaining rights?


True, but that doesn't necessarily mean equal rights.


Would you care to elaborate?
The most simplistic explanation imho is for the customer to negogiate the price of what he is buying and for the worker to negotiate what is selling his labor for.

When government and foreign trade pacts comes into the picture, if business is allowed to have a say in it, then so should workers and consumers

Consumer: I don't think we should trade with China because their items are low quality
Worker: Supply and Demand will cut into my compensation

If we start with the first premise in the beginning, it has everything to do with money.

Workers and Consumers were not invited to the bargaining table with regard to our trade pacts
It was all done by Corporate Suits



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Kids are very very expensive, which is why people should think long and hard and carefully analyze their financial situation before they decide to have them. Instead, most people put about as much thought into it as I put into buying a car.

Edit: It's ironic that in the US we make people jump through tremendously complicated hoops before they're qualified to adopt a child, including financially. But if you want to have your own it's like oh you can't afford kids? OK, have as many as you want.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

This isn't a philosophy class. Real world economics is a lot more complicated than true and false questions from one of your electives in college. There are literally thousands of laws to protect workers in this country. There are still people that get exploited, and that sucks. All I'm saying is overall we've got it really good here. You may not have it as good as you want it. There's # I want that I don't have because I can't afford it. Tough.


Alrighty then
Just don't call it Capitalism though

Be up front and proud about it and say you support NWO Style Corporate Fascism
Come out and say it

The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

David Rockefeller



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

It's not textbook capitalism just like it's not textbook democracy. It's colloquially called that because many aspects of it represent that system, even if it doesn't meet the technical definition.

And even assigning the word fascism to it is a historically illiterate comment.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

This isn't a philosophy class. Real world economics is a lot more complicated than true and false questions from one of your electives in college.


It is also not complicated at all to understand Capitalism
It is very complicated though when you throw in corporate lawyers and bought and paid for politicians that write pages and pages of legislation to make sure they are ahead of the game and those that do not have the money are left in the dust

It is all be design

Monopoly by the Biggest Corporations has been legalized
Start with any Chain and work up from there and people will see it all leads into fewer hands



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

It's not textbook capitalism just like it's not textbook democracy. It's colloquially called that because many aspects of it represent that system, even if it doesn't meet the technical definition.

And even assigning the word fascism to it is a historically illiterate comment.


That is a matter of opinion insofar as whose definition we use, I mean definitions are always changing especially when it comes to politicians and propaganda

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power
Benito Mussolini

Some say that this quote is not accurate
Mussolini was most definitely a Fascist and he most definitely supported corporatism from his writings

I get what your saying, don't rock the boat since we all have it good

No, we do not all have it good
There are tent cities in America, there are people in debt to their eye balls because of Expensive healthcare that can charge whatever they feel like, there are more people on the off ramps with signs for food that I have seen in years

This country is in debt up to our ears, we have infrastructure falling apart and yet we always seem to have trillions for more wars.

What we have is not WORKING



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

With a representative republic like we have, even if you only put the most altruistic people in power, you're naturally going to wind up with a patchwork of extremely complicated laws over the course of several hundred years. Not that I think our leaders have been altruistic, but it definitely doesn't take some secret society master plan to wind up like this. All it takes is hundreds of representatives of millions of people all with different views on how it's best to run things, and a lot of time.

I can't argue it would be nice to see a lot of things simplified. Like the tax code.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

It's not textbook capitalism just like it's not textbook democracy. It's colloquially called that because many aspects of it represent that system, even if it doesn't meet the technical definition.

And even assigning the word fascism to it is a historically illiterate comment.


That is a matter of opinion insofar as whose definition we use, I mean definitions are always changing especially when it comes to politicians and propaganda

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power
Benito Mussolini

Some say that this quote is not accurate
Mussolini was most definitely a Fascist and he most definitely supported corporatism from his writings

I get what your saying, don't rock the boat since we all have it good

No, we do not all have it good
There are tent cities in America, there are people in debt to their eye balls because of Expensive healthcare that can charge whatever they feel like, there are more people on the off ramps with signs for food that I have seen in years

This country is in debt up to our ears, we have infrastructure falling apart and yet we always seem to have trillions for more wars.

What we have is not WORKING




The reason I said it's historically illiterate to call our system corporate fascism is that the average person in the US has vastly more economic freedom than citizens of fascist Germany or Italy had social or political freedom. It's simply not comparable.

And the reason for most of our debt isn't war.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

With a representative republic like we have, even if you only put the most altruistic people in power, you're naturally going to wind up with a patchwork of extremely complicated laws over the course of several hundred years. Not that I think our leaders have been altruistic, but it definitely doesn't take some secret society master plan to wind up like this. All it takes is hundreds of representatives of millions of people all with different views on how it's best to run things, and a lot of time.

I can't argue it would be nice to see a lot of things simplified. Like the tax code.


The problem is, the ones we are putting in power, come from the Big Corporations.
Some say, this is great because they know how to run a business.
I disagree, Washington DC should be full of "Representative People from all Americans"

This country was more prosperous for EVERYONE when you had people from all walks of life in Washington DC
In the last 30 years, Washington DC has been flooded with Bankers and Corporate Heads
They were going to show "how it is done".

The only thing they have shown is how to serve their former Corporation which they will be returning to when they are done.

You cannot get the corruption out of humans, so the best you are going to do is have all sides involved.
Washington DC should be full of farmers, laborers, union leaders, small business leaders and so on.

Having a bunch of Corporate heads from the Biggest Corporations run our government is the height of stupidity
We know who they will serve
edit on 25-8-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

I can't argue against the concept it would be better to get more varied representation in DC. We're in total agreement there. But whose fault is that? I remember a discussion about Congress in the front office a few years back. Someone labeled Congress a bunch of dummies and our old retired Chief corrected him with "They must be smarter than you think because about 90% of them get re-elected."

Translation: we're the dummies.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

I can't argue against the concept it would be better to get more varied representation in DC. We're in total agreement there. But whose fault is that? I remember a discussion about Congress in the front office a few years back. Someone labeled Congress a bunch of dummies and our old retired Chief corrected him with "They must be smarter than you think because about 90% of them get re-elected."

Translation: we're the dummies.


Starred
It is our fault
The problem is, too many fall for the political campaign slogans without doing some history
Obama: I am going to have the most transparent administration ever and get corruption out of DC and Wall Street
Trump: We are going to drain the swamp and make America Great Again

Trump was the king of Crony Capitalism so it was a No Duh moment for me not to vote for him

The Corporate Media via banners and brainwashing SELL to the Americans on who to pick
They sold Donald as an Anti Establishment Pick

Everything makes sense and too many get suckered


I mean, how naive are people to believe that from Trumps own words,
he was a Crony Capitalist purchasing politicians which makes him part of the Establishment and then runs that he is not?

My head hurts

edit on 25-8-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

Luckily there's only so much damage the president can do without help from Congress. So what about Congress? A lot of people seem to have the illusion that their rep isn't the problem. It's always the other guy. So someone vote them out, but I'm keeping my guy! And then most of them are back next session and nothing changes.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: jacobe001

Luckily there's only so much damage the president can do without help from Congress. So what about Congress? A lot of people seem to have the illusion that their rep isn't the problem. It's always the other guy. So someone vote them out, but I'm keeping my guy! And then most of them are back next session and nothing changes.


I think we need to start with campaign finance reform and to end money backed lobbying
Money Backed Lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribery

Even if Trump was legitimate, what can he do about the hundreds of bought and paid for politicians surrounding him?
edit on 25-8-2017 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

Don't forget about the unelected bureaucracy.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I have to ask, what the hell are people spending their money on? I don't make that much money, yet still have plenty in the bank, and plenty in cash. I don't have children, so I'm wondering, are kids that damn expensive? I don't know how people live paycheck to paycheck, I would die from the worry and stress.


Yes, kids are damn expensive.
They need all of the things you need, but they don't have jobs.
Thankfully, most kids have parents or a parent that provide for them and buy them the things they need to survive.

You were a kid once, and you were expensive.

I hope you never have to die from the worry and stress that many deal with everyday.


edit on 2017-08-26T00:26:47-05:002201726America/Chicago8 by c2oden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The people born during the swing generation, 1930's, are starting to die off. They are the ultimate consumers having mostly anything they wanted, big house, cars, extravagant vacations and travel and plenty of money to save.

Face it they have spent it all leaving little for the preceding generations. As for the expense of kids, many are kicked out of the house at 18 to fend for themselves. Parents want to enjoy their 'hard earned retirement'.
edit on 26-8-2017 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I enjoyed the "they are legally earning more than you" comment. Who do the laws favor? You really think those are just laws meant to favor everyone equally? Or meant to favor those who line the pockets who make those laws? You are ignorant if you think those who earn more money are somehow more justified to get it. Laws favor the rich.

I work for a company with a CEO and upper management who actually give out bonuses in reverse. They fully believe those in the field doing the 12 hour a day jobs of hard labor deserve the dividends of a good year or quarter first. Then it flows upwards. If it was a bad year, the upper management gets nothing.

Which makes sense. If a company is led well, it prospers. Why should those who work difficult jobs and long hours suffer because the company was run poorly? But that isn't the case in many larger corporations. Do poorly? YOU get a 1% raise. The upper management is still going to get their full bonus. That people would defend this model boggles the mind.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join