On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:14:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:34:03 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

notice he thinks 100,000,000 americans should spend all their time
sitting on their asses watching their stocks instead of raisin their
kids, building their communities, etc...

It should take you about an hour a week to manage investments. If your
financial security is not as important as watching Survivor on TV, you
are cheating your family.


gee. guess you havent heard that 100M americans are in the same shape
i am

a LOGICAL person would assume that some common cause was responsible.
after all, if 100M people were affected by a tsunami, would you blame
the dead?

if you're right wing, you would

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


a LOGICAL person would assume that some common cause was responsible.
after all, if 100M people were affected by a tsunami, would you blame
the dead?

if you're right wing, you would

If the 100m people went to the beach that day to see the tsunami I
would blame them.

gee. 100M people at the beach

well, i suppose if you're right wing, you HAVE to invent SOME idiotic
excuse....


If these people did not have any personal savings and they spent
significantly more than they made, I blame them too.

and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


a LOGICAL person would assume that some common cause was responsible.
after all, if 100M people were affected by a tsunami, would you blame
the dead?

if you're right wing, you would

If the 100m people went to the beach that day to see the tsunami I
would blame them.

gee. 100M people at the beach

well, i suppose if you're right wing, you HAVE to invent SOME idiotic
excuse....


If these people did not have any personal savings and they spent
significantly more than they made, I blame them too.

and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

On 09/05/2010 2:59 PM, D.Duck wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


a LOGICAL person would assume that some common cause was responsible.
after all, if 100M people were affected by a tsunami, would you blame
the dead?

if you're right wing, you would

If the 100m people went to the beach that day to see the tsunami I
would blame them.

gee. 100M people at the beach

well, i suppose if you're right wing, you HAVE to invent SOME idiotic
excuse....


If these people did not have any personal savings and they spent
significantly more than they made, I blame them too.

and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

Yep. And the only reason why inflation isn't nuts right now is price
pressures of people not haveing the debt/credit/money they used to. So
companies have to cut costs or face buyers resistance. But at some
point that will no longer work and either shortages occur or prices rise.

--
There is a sucker born every minute, liberals and our politicians are
counting on it.

On Sun, 09 May 2010 17:02:50 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/05/2010 2:59 PM, D.Duck wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

Yep. And the only reason why inflation isn't nuts right now is price
pressures of people not haveing the debt/credit/money they used to.

really? why not check he

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflati...tion_chart.htm

to see long term inflation rates. seems inflation has always pretty
much run what it is now. about 2.5%

and the reason we have no money is the rich folks have ensured the
middle class gets no pay increase for 10 years

On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:59:35 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

oh. so only 66M americans are idiots and should live ijn poverty?

i stand corrected

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:59:35 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

oh. so only 66M americans are idiots and should live ijn poverty?

i stand corrected


You're the stickler for "facts".

On Sun, 9 May 2010 19:35:52 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:59:35 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

oh. so only 66M americans are idiots and should live ijn poverty?

i stand corrected


You're the stickler for "facts".

actually you forgot the fact the middle class includes WORKERS AND
THEIR FAMILIES

66M middle class wage earners

their spoused

their children...

On 5/9/10 7:35 PM, D.Duck wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:59:35 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

oh. so only 66M americans are idiots and should live ijn poverty?

i stand corrected


You're the stickler for "facts".


And you're just...tacky.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 5/9/10 7:35 PM, D.Duck wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:59:35 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:33:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:42:19 -0400, bpuharic
wrote:


and if the middle class hasnt had a real wage increase in 10 years,
you have to invent SOME idiotic reason it's their fault...


BTW where do you get that 100m number you keep throwing around as
fact? If I believe the definition of middle class that was
established
here ($100k to $200k) the total number of households is more like 13
million.

there are about 110M wage earners in this country. the middle class
generally is the middle 20-80%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income-curve-$10k.png

Let's see, 20~80% is about 60%. 60% of 110M wage earners is 66M. The
number is shrinking.

oh. so only 66M americans are idiots and should live ijn poverty?

i stand corrected


You're the stickler for "facts".


And you're just...tacky.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

I guess I'm happy being a member of the "middle" class. Been retired 15
years, no pension increase, no Social Security increase this year or next.
My standard of living has not deteriorated in spite of it all.

Maybe I just planned better in my younger years than some here have done.