Wealthiest nation in history of mankind at it's most wealthy point in it's history, that's prosperity right thur. The only people who think it isn't are SIFCLFs.
Or the 90% that don’t benefit from absurd debt levels and borrowed profits.
Apparently 61% have profited over the last 3 years, and you're just an idiot who wants to believe reality is worse than it really is.
Why does Trump have a 55.7% approval rating (+16.3 spread) on the economy, if 90% don't benefit? More than 10% benefit, that's how.
SuburbanFarmer wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:07 pm
Picture a billionaire onstage defending capitalism during the greatest period of inequality in history.
High levels of wealth inequality does not mean the non-elites are not well off.
But a stagnant real income for most Americans for the past thirty years does.
If the wealthy are wealthier because they actually create wealth, then okay. But when they are wealthier because they are exploiting 90% of the population as we have now.. You might have President Bernie.
Bernie is going to get elected - more proles have nothing to loose than those that do - If he gets elected, and is successful with taxing the shit out of incomes above $100K - I’m going to have a conversation with my boss that i need to be paid enough to make it worth my time despite being ass raped in tax - He’ll probably say he can’t afford it, to which I will say - hello permanent vacation (at least until the country rips itself apart) - I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking like this. It’s not worth it for me to work my ass off if it just goes to Uncle FuCk me in the ass Sam.
SuburbanFarmer wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:07 pm
Picture a billionaire onstage defending capitalism during the greatest period of inequality in history.
High levels of wealth inequality does not mean the non-elites are not well off.
But a stagnant real income for most Americans for the past thirty years does.
If the wealthy are wealthier because they actually create wealth, then okay. But when they are wealthier because they are exploiting 90% of the population as we have now.. You might have President Bernie.
Except under Trump real income is going up, and the other thirty years can't be blamed on him.
PartyOf5 wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:55 pm
High levels of wealth inequality does not mean the non-elites are not well off.
But a stagnant real income for most Americans for the past thirty years does.
If the wealthy are wealthier because they actually create wealth, then okay. But when they are wealthier because they are exploiting 90% of the population as we have now.. You might have President Bernie.
Except under Trump real income is going up, and the other thirty years can't be blamed on him.
I don’t think the .01% increase in 4 years is going to cut it with voters.
But a stagnant real income for most Americans for the past thirty years does.
If the wealthy are wealthier because they actually create wealth, then okay. But when they are wealthier because they are exploiting 90% of the population as we have now.. You might have President Bernie.
Except under Trump real income is going up, and the other thirty years can't be blamed on him.
I don’t think the .01% increase in 4 years is going to cut it with voters.
They voted for people who gave them less, especially incumbents, so your theory is incorrect, it's pure feelz.
