On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:40:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:55:30 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

really? where's your proof? because here's mine.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html

WHERE ARE THE REAL INCREASES IN WAGES??

you scream that they exist

where are they??


The went to the qualified people who were essential to the operation
of the company.

proof? well...none. where's your data? guesswork and bull**** doesnt
count

There were also people who had sense enough to change jobs when they
knew they were in a dead end position.

data? or bull****. looks like bull****. no data at all


The real question is, if you are still doing the same job you were
dong 20 years ago, why would they pay you more? If you want to grow
your salary, you have to grow your job.

you ignore the EVIDENCE. other countries dont have this problem. we
do. the evidence is clear

you're just a right winger who herniates himself covered with bull****

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:05:43 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:42:56 -0400, wrote:



INFLATION ADJUSTED wages have not risen in 30 years

are you naturally stupid or do you practice?


Wow! You finally caught on about the "adjusted for inflation" part of
the graph you posted a dozen times


gee. so did you.. more backpedaling?

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:17:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:29:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

The reason the average is down is because millions of people had their
high paid jobs shipped offshore due to policies and laws written when
that guy from Arkansas was in office. (NAFTA/GATT).

ROFLMAO!!! i'm old enough to remember that.

NAFTA was negotiated by GEORGE BUSH. it was laid out in great detail
by GEORGE BUSH. clinton signed it because it's destructive to a
nation's reputation to go back on a treaty that's about to be signed.

christ. dont you guys know ANYTHING??

Yup blame it on Bush, the standard democrat answer for 2 decades

i notice you couldnt refute the fact.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:33:50 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:09:47 -0400, wrote:



go ahead. tell me how the middle class hasnt had a raise in 27 years
while, in the same time, the wealthiest 1% has had a 500% increase.

go head. i'll wait

Look up "inflation adjusted" and get back to me. You are also comparing
the entire "middle class" to the wealthiest *1%*!?!?

uh no.

let I be income

let t be time

i'm NOT comparing I(middle class) to I(rich)

i'm comparing

dI(middle class)/dt to dI(rich)/dt

wihich shows the middle class have grabbed every freakin' dime for
themselves and STARVED the middle class

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:47:19 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:



Only the dumb ones. I retired when I was 49 but I did have a little
hobby job for a few years after that.

so 100M americans are dumb

you right whiners think your little fairy tales have an impact on the
middle class.

wrong


Your problem is you don't read well and come up with these crazy
knee-jerk responses. You have blinders on and, apparently, they have
been on your whole life.

folks generally do make that complaint when they get bitch slapped

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:42:07 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:38 -0400, wrote:


On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:06:53 -0400, wrote:


I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you
could have prevented the losses you took.

gee. where was your crystal ball in 2006?

I sold a lot of stock in 2006, you should have asked me.
I sold off my home builder stock in 2004. I am actually swimming in
that money (my pool)

gee. too bad most m iddle class americans will have to work 'til
they're 70

Not if they applied themselves, worked hard, and saved money.

ROFLMAO!! so it's the middle class's fault??

HAHAHAHAHA!!

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:39:16 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:03:06 -0400, wrote:



and what makes you think loan officers arent interested in money?


I said, and I know I misspelled a word, that I realize that they can be
liquidated. They are still of not interest to a loan officer as
collateral. I'm quite bright. I have a large 401K/IRA. You,
apparently don't.


so you say. the average 401K is less than 50K.

mine's bigger.

and so is my 401K

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:09:36 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:10:02 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:




you're probably the only canadian who flies a klan flag on his front
porch

Capitol gains is partly so people will invest for the long term.

which is bull****. it costs about 50 cents for every dollar we give to
the rich in captial gains

check out the chart about half way down the page here

http://www.tnr.com/blogs/jonathan-chait

giving the rich more money COSTS the economy money.


Who is giving the rich money? Obama wants to give the losers *our* money.

correct. because we h ave no choice

but it's time to pass a few bux to the mddle class

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:41:04 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:05:16 -0400, wrote:


then they get to write off their losses. deduct business
expenses...yadda yadda...



*Get* to write off losses? Like that's a good thing? Business expenses
are expenses, not income, so they should be deductible.

uh no. you dont understand the difference between an expense and a
loss

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:13:47 -0400, Larry wrote:


Yup. Obama's off-the-chart spending will certainly increase taxes. He
can't keep printing money forever.


actually it's bush. obama's first year budget was a carry over from
bush. and it had a 9% GDP deficit.

but he's black...