|
Logic question
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, Larry wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:10:16 -0400, wrote: you keep making the typical right wing mistake i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from FAIRY TALES that's why you can't understand what i'm saying. NO ONE...repeat NO ONE in the middle class got a raise i'm not sure how many ways i can tell you that to get it through your rush limballs polluted head. I know my son in law has doubled his salary since then but he moved and changed jobs. like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP |
Logic question
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:41:07 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:14:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote: ever hear of inflation? What was the inflation rate in the 2000"s? Are you saying they never gave you a dime? you keep making the typical right wing mistake i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from FAIRY TALES I am asking you for evidence, what was your income on your 2000 tax return and what was it in 2009? it's irrelevant. i'm not the entire middle class. sorry. like i said, i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from ANECDOTE. if this country were the reader's digest, you'd have an argument... that's why you can't understand what i'm saying. NO ONE...repeat NO ONE in the middle class got a raise See EVERYONE I know had some kind of raise and I know lots of people who did quite well. wrong. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...the-day-6.html so show me where your 100,000,000 friends are on that chart, OK? I know my son in law has doubled his salary since then but he moved and changed jobs. like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote An anecdote is evidence of at least that person and I have now given you two I know very well. wow. 2 people that just leaves 99,999,998 other people you have to explain That means your "NOBODY" is BULL****. let's see...i have evidence from ninety nine MILLION people you? you have a fairy tale from two people and on that you conclude that the other tens of millions got a raise typical right wing bull**** You are quoting some statistic based on averages that does not take into account the number of people who retired .. meaningless .. for just one thing. I agree the average, weighted by all of those union auto workers who lost their job when we moved the factory to Mexico and all the high paid techie people like me who were simply put out of work by the technology, drags down the average but that doesn't mean the people who could still stay in good jobs are not getting raises. there are no unions in the US. so let's see. you have cited 2 retired people and i cited proof from 100,000,000 people over 37 years and to you they're irrelevant |
Logic question
|
Logic question
|
Logic question
In article ,
says... YukonBound wrote: "Harry (I post with a Mac, check the headers for ID spoofers who don't)" wrote in message m... On 8/12/10 6:35 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry (I post with a Mac, check the headers for ID spoofers who don't)" wrote in message m... On 8/12/10 3:38 PM, mmc wrote: "I am wrote in message ... In , says... On 11-Aug-2010, wrote: At least $1.6 trillion debt spend this year. (but some say more is actual) That is $64,000 per unemployed person. Where is the money really going? I mean this seriously! As Obama does this for 4 years, that is more than a quarter million dollars per unemployed!!! it's the racist assumption that obama has something to do with this that's risible. obama is, hopefully, doing the responsible things; re-regulating wall street (done); allowing some of the bush giveaways to the rich to expire (biggest factor in the deficit), etc. the racist right just thinks the darkie pres is responsible. "Thinking like that by a significant percentage of U.S. inhabitants is why the former U.S. is just around the corner from the economic might of Somalian ghettos. Like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Newark, St. Louis............... Voting should require an intelligence test. Naw, all we would really have to do is stop the huge percentage of voter fraud support and paid for by George Soros and the DNC... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! How about mandatory voter education and the death penalty for elected liars and crooks? This would retroactive for lies told and under the table bribes taken while campaigning. And this would be for all politicians Bob!!! No free ride for any race!!! Yet another rec.boats brain sturgeon, eh? Must be something in the water......... wait a minute, most of the dopers in here don't go near the water..... not even for a monthly bath. Speaking of the really stupid, I wonder how Little Man Freak's day went at his non-existent webhosting ISP. Terri probably puts him in a corner and lets him answer the phone on occasion..... as long as he passes all questions directly to her. Probably. You have nothing else to do but THIS? Is Harry, our resident High School drop out, and convicted pedophile still trying to call me out? Pfffftttt, from under his desk again, same as it ever was... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
Logic question
On 8/17/10 9:38 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
Is Harry, our resident High School drop out, and convicted pedophile still trying to call me out? Pfffftttt, from under his desk again, same as it ever was... Did I miss the posts in which you demonstrated you were other than an unemployed, unemployable dumfoch? The ISP/website host business you claim to own is a joke. The photos of employees are stock photos, the site design is archaic, the verbiage is sloppy, the equipment claims are lies. Further, your wife doesn't work there...she works for someone else. And what could *you* possibly do at such a business? Marketing? Unlikely. Customer support? You don't know anything about networking. And there doesn't appear to be a "live" support number. If anyone is hiding under a desk, it is...you...little man. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
On 8/17/10 9:52 AM, Jack wrote:
The middle class is shrinking because the upper class is growing snerk -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
"Harry " wrote in message
m... On 8/17/10 9:52 AM, Jack wrote: The middle class is shrinking because the upper class is growing snerk -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. snerk -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
In article ,
says... In article , says... YukonBound wrote: "Harry (I post with a Mac, check the headers for ID spoofers who don't)" wrote in message m... On 8/12/10 6:35 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry (I post with a Mac, check the headers for ID spoofers who don't)" wrote in message m... On 8/12/10 3:38 PM, mmc wrote: "I am wrote in message ... In , says... On 11-Aug-2010, wrote: At least $1.6 trillion debt spend this year. (but some say more is actual) That is $64,000 per unemployed person. Where is the money really going? I mean this seriously! As Obama does this for 4 years, that is more than a quarter million dollars per unemployed!!! it's the racist assumption that obama has something to do with this that's risible. obama is, hopefully, doing the responsible things; re-regulating wall street (done); allowing some of the bush giveaways to the rich to expire (biggest factor in the deficit), etc. the racist right just thinks the darkie pres is responsible. "Thinking like that by a significant percentage of U.S. inhabitants is why the former U.S. is just around the corner from the economic might of Somalian ghettos. Like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Newark, St. Louis............... Voting should require an intelligence test. Naw, all we would really have to do is stop the huge percentage of voter fraud support and paid for by George Soros and the DNC... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! How about mandatory voter education and the death penalty for elected liars and crooks? This would retroactive for lies told and under the table bribes taken while campaigning. And this would be for all politicians Bob!!! No free ride for any race!!! Yet another rec.boats brain sturgeon, eh? Must be something in the water......... wait a minute, most of the dopers in here don't go near the water..... not even for a monthly bath. Speaking of the really stupid, I wonder how Little Man Freak's day went at his non-existent webhosting ISP. Terri probably puts him in a corner and lets him answer the phone on occasion..... as long as he passes all questions directly to her. Probably. You have nothing else to do but THIS? Is Harry, our resident High School drop out, and convicted pedophile still trying to call me out? Pfffftttt, from under his desk again, same as it ever was... Hey, you d.f., I graduated from Yale. Really. I did. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
On Aug 17, 4:13*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 6:36*am, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:08:43 -0400, wrote: BTW isn't "30 years ago" about when you say the middle class started getting screwed. 37 actually. The middle class is shrinking because the upper class is growing Steve Horwitz from the Austrian Economists blog writes: really? there are 20,000,000 millionaires in the US? and how does this relate to the fact the middle class hasnt had a raise in 37 years? The reality, as it turns out, is different. From 1980 to 2006, the percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006 dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1 and what percentage of this was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? care to answer? The percentage between $75k and $100K grew from 10.3 to 11.3 percent IOW no growth... . At the other end, the percentage under $15K fell from 16.6% to 13.4% and the percentage between $15K and $34K fell from 26.2% to 23.3%. Thus all three categories below $35K fell a total of 6.1 percentage points. a few percentage...hardly any change at all. The middle classes fell too, though by less. The sum total across the $35K to $75K categories fell by 5.4 percentage points. In other words: the net movement of households was an 11.5 percentage point gain in households above $75K and a net reduction of 11.5 percentage points in houses below $75K. So the percentage above $75K rose from 18.9% to 30.4%. That is, it increased by over 50%. Let me repeat that: over 30% of US households in 2006 earned above $75K compared to under 20% in 1980 and what percentage of these changes can be related to differences in composition of houselholds, 2 income families, etc? well, actually...quite alot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ited_States#Ho... "From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau =============== so what we see is that middle class income grew hardly at all...and those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers. haha... you really need to learn to read for content. From the same wiki page, just above your quote: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households among the general population has *decreased*." (fewer two-income households) "In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quarter of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household *demographics*, median household income rose relatively slowly despite an ever increasing female labor force and a *considerable* increase in the percentage of college graduates." (higher incomes, more females, but fewer dual income households) Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely opposite of your own cites viewpoint!! They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households! Your own quote: "The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the *size* and *composition* of households *rather* than a reflection of a stagnating economy." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy." YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! Wow. Just... wow. I'm done. |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 17, 4:13*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: The reality, as it turns out, is different. From 1980 to 2006, the percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006 dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1 and what percentage of this was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? care to answer? and what percentage of these changes can be related to differences in composition of houselholds, 2 income families, etc? well, actually...quite alot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo...ited_States#Ho... "From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau =============== so what we see is that middle class income grew hardly at all...and those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers. haha... you really need to learn to read for content. From the same wiki page, just above your quote: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households among the general population has *decreased*." (fewer two-income households) which accounts for ALOT of the decrease and stagnation in middle class incomes...as i've been saying. yes. thanks. i already knew that. Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely opposite of your own cites viewpoint!! They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households! ?? since when did dual income households all of a sudden become those without children? Your own quote: "The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the *size* and *composition* of households *rather* than a reflection of a stagnating economy." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy." YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! Wow. Just... wow. I'm done. WTF?? where...where did i ever say the economy was stagnating? what did you do? call rush and ask for a stupidity transplant? YOU YOURSELF JUST ADMITTED MIDDLE CLASS INCOME WAS STAGNANT! you kind of overlooked those words, didn't you? do you see them in your OWN quote? see them above?? and why did this occur? because the elties continued to drain the middle class of ANY increase in wages. as productivity increased, the elites siphoned that off for themselves. as women entered the workforce, per capita wages dropped as the workforce expanded. so tell me, oh right wing genius.... HOW DO STAGNANT WAGES PROVE THAT WAGES WERE NOT STAGNANT?? thanks. i'm done here |
Logic question
On Aug 17, 5:01*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. While the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased from 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the *proportion* of such households among the general population has *decreased*." *(fewer two-income households) which accounts for ALOT of the decrease and stagnation in middle class incomes...as i've been saying. yes. thanks. i already knew that. That is NOT what you've been saying. You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! Your statement that "those changes that DID occur were largely due to women entering the workforce in greater numbers." is completely opposite of your own cites viewpoint!! They are saying that the reason it rose slowly is "changing household demographics", namely that there are LESS two-income households! ?? since when did dual income households all of a sudden become those without children? WTF?? Who said anything about children? Your own quote: "The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the *size* and *composition* of households *rather* than a reflection of a stagnating economy." completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. *Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy." *YOUR OWN QUOTE!!! Wow. *Just... wow. *I'm done. WTF?? where...where did i ever say the economy was stagnating? what did you do? call rush and ask for a stupidity transplant? YOU YOURSELF JUST ADMITTED MIDDLE CLASS INCOME WAS STAGNANT! You're the one that linked to the article and posted that quote, not me. Sorry if it actually shoots your position in the head. "median household income" rose slightly. You do know what "median" means, right? It says there has been a rise in income, and the median income rise would be bigger if it weren't for the loss of two-income households. Not that the rise only happened because of women entering the workforce, which is what you said. HOW DO STAGNANT WAGES PROVE THAT WAGES WERE NOT STAGNANT?? They aren't. Your own link says "While household income has *increased*..." It completely DISPROVES your false assertion that it is because of stagnant wages. Rather, it's "changes in the size and composition of households (that make median income growth seem small) rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy (and wages)." thanks. i'm done here- You certainly are. |
Logic question
bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:10:16 -0400, wrote: you keep making the typical right wing mistake i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from FAIRY TALES that's why you can't understand what i'm saying. NO ONE...repeat NO ONE in the middle class got a raise i'm not sure how many ways i can tell you that to get it through your rush limballs polluted head. I know my son in law has doubled his salary since then but he moved and changed jobs. like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. |
Logic question
I am Tosk wrote:
In articleXbCdnR5CacEOUfTRnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com, says... YukonBound wrote: "Harry (I post with a Mac, check the headers for ID spoofers who wrote in message m... On 8/12/10 6:35 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry (I post with a Mac, check the headers for ID spoofers who don't)" wrote in message m... On 8/12/10 3:38 PM, mmc wrote: "I am wrote in message ... In , says... On 11-Aug-2010, wrote: At least $1.6 trillion debt spend this year. (but some say more is actual) That is $64,000 per unemployed person. Where is the money really going? I mean this seriously! As Obama does this for 4 years, that is more than a quarter million dollars per unemployed!!! it's the racist assumption that obama has something to do with this that's risible. obama is, hopefully, doing the responsible things; re-regulating wall street (done); allowing some of the bush giveaways to the rich to expire (biggest factor in the deficit), etc. the racist right just thinks the darkie pres is responsible. "Thinking like that by a significant percentage of U.S. inhabitants is why the former U.S. is just around the corner from the economic might of Somalian ghettos. Like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Newark, St. Louis............... Voting should require an intelligence test. Naw, all we would really have to do is stop the huge percentage of voter fraud support and paid for by George Soros and the DNC... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! How about mandatory voter education and the death penalty for elected liars and crooks? This would retroactive for lies told and under the table bribes taken while campaigning. And this would be for all politicians Bob!!! No free ride for any race!!! Yet another rec.boats brain sturgeon, eh? Must be something in the water......... wait a minute, most of the dopers in here don't go near the water..... not even for a monthly bath. Speaking of the really stupid, I wonder how Little Man Freak's day went at his non-existent webhosting ISP. Terri probably puts him in a corner and lets him answer the phone on occasion..... as long as he passes all questions directly to her. Probably. You have nothing else to do but THIS? Is Harry, our resident High School drop out, and convicted pedophile still trying to call me out? Pfffftttt, from under his desk again, same as it ever was... No, his puppy Donnie. Not much difference. |
Logic question
On Aug 17, 5:48*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: That is NOT what you've been saying. *You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? *There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been *a DECREASE in dual income families. *in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya |
Logic question
Jack wrote:
On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote: That is NOT what you've been saying. You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been a DECREASE in dual income families. in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:02:53 -0400, Larry
wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, wrote: like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. what is the middle class? chopped liver? you are stupid, aren't you? oh...i forgot...to the right wing, the middle class should be slaves...not people |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: That is NOT what you've been saying. *You said: "what percentage of this (increase) was accounted for by a growth in dual income families? *There actually is a DECREASE in dual-income families, which limited the observed INCREASE in income!! ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been *a DECREASE in dual income families. *in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. gee. i guess, being right wing, you can't think the reference pointed out 2 facts -men's wages stagnated -womens wages increased until the 90's then THEY stagnated as well you right wingers with your little fairy tales gloss over details. but the details are the wooden stake in the heart of your little fables about how lazy the middle class is. cya |
Logic question
In article ,
says... bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:17:30 -0400, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:10:16 -0400, wrote: you keep making the typical right wing mistake i argue from EVIDENCE you argue from FAIRY TALES that's why you can't understand what i'm saying. NO ONE...repeat NO ONE in the middle class got a raise i'm not sure how many ways i can tell you that to get it through your rush limballs polluted head. I know my son in law has doubled his salary since then but he moved and changed jobs. like i said, i argue from evidence. you? you argue from anecdote Give up your lame rant, Bob. You are dead wrong. fine. you go show me where the middle class got a raise, and i'll join the GOP PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. 50% of the people in my group got cash raises this year, either in their salary or their bonus pool. I got a lousy restricted stock grant, I won't see any of the money until next year. |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:46:59 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:02:53 -0400, Larry wrote: PEOPLE get raises, not CLASSES of people, dip****. He keeps forgetting people move through the work force. They start in low level jobs and move up. BUZZZZ!!!! WRONG!!! http://www.americanprogress.org/issu.../b1579981.html ¦Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance. ¦Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent. If you just look at the statistics, a $40,000 a year job will still be there but one person will move on and another person will be there. You showed that a significant number of people move up into the "rich" category and there are plenty of people joining the work force at the bottom every year. BUZZ!!! WRONG!!! ¦By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States. It turns out now that Bob changed companies a couple years ago, presumably for better money and that he does have a pension, in spite of all of that "rich people will only give me a 401k" story. All we really know for sure is he read an article from Andrew Sullivan a while ago and he believes it. and from the bureau of labor statistics and the brookings institutions and princeton university and paul krugman, nobel prize winner joe stiglitz, nobel prize winner and you? oh. you listened to rush no wonder you're full of right wing bull**** |
Logic question
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry
wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground |
Logic question
On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it.. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? |
Logic question
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. |
Logic question
On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! |
Logic question
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! i love it. he can't read so complains when others can. oh well, that's what happens when rush does your thinking...or lack of it...for you |
Logic question
On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. *Please don't stop! i love it. he can't read so complains when others can. *your own data proves your statements wrong* Priceless!!! |
Logic question
bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground Obama is doing just fine without any help. That will CHANGE soon enough! |
Logic question
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. *Please don't stop! i love it. he can't read so complains when others can. *your own data proves your statements wrong* Priceless!!! OK let's do this the hard way. how do you calculate an average? the population is men and women. the output is average wages. go ahead. show us how to calculate this |
Logic question
On Aug 18, 7:46*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think.. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. *Please don't stop! i love it. he can't read so complains when others can. *your own data proves your statements wrong* Priceless!!! OK let's do this the hard way. how do you calculate an average? the population is men and women. the output is average wages. go ahead. show us how to calculate this There you go, trying to move the goalpost again. Here's the issue being discussed... You wrote: ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been a DECREASE in dual income families. in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? and I wrote and quoted" Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! See, bob? You are WRONG again!! |
Logic question
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote: On Aug 18, 7:46*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. *Please don't stop! i love it. he can't read so complains when others can. *your own data proves your statements wrong* Priceless!!! OK let's do this the hard way. how do you calculate an average? the population is men and women. the output is average wages. go ahead. show us how to calculate this There you go, trying to move the goalpost again. Here's the issue being discussed... You wrote: ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been a DECREASE in dual income families. in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? and I wrote and quoted" Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! See, bob? You are WRONG again!! IOW you think EVERYONE in the middle class is in a household hmmm...seems you left out ALOT of people. oh well...time for you to phone up rush and whimper that you failed again |
Logic question
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 6:45 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! You find train wrecks funny? You're one weird goofball. |
Logic question
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote:
On Aug 18, 7:46*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 7:12*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 6:45*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, *wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? *From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. *Deranged. *Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. *Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. *You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. *Please don't stop! i love it. he can't read so complains when others can. *your own data proves your statements wrong* Priceless!!! OK let's do this the hard way. how do you calculate an average? the population is men and women. the output is average wages. go ahead. show us how to calculate this There you go, trying to move the goalpost again. Here's the issue being discussed... You wrote: ??WTF? can you read? no one said...and no reference says...there has been a DECREASE in dual income families. in addition to being stupid are you illiterate? and I wrote and quoted" Except your own link: "While household income has *increased*, its growth has been slowed by a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners and, therefore, higher incomes. What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! See, bob? You are WRONG again!! I think Harry is telling Bob to post various articles and argue a point. Bob does so, not realizing the article doesn't support his point. Bob doesn't read the article 'cause Harry said it was OK. That's what I think. -- John H |
Logic question
On 8/18/10 10:38 PM, YukonBound wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 6:45 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! You find train wrecks funny? You're one weird goofball. He is just another right wing POS. When are you heading up to the Yukon? -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
"John H" wrote in message ... I think Harry is telling Bob to post various articles and argue a point. Bob does so, not realizing the article doesn't support his point. Bob doesn't read the article 'cause Harry said it was OK. That's what I think. -- John H Don't attempt to "think". It's not your strong suit! |
Logic question
"Harry " wrote in message ... On 8/18/10 10:38 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 6:45 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! You find train wrecks funny? You're one weird goofball. He is just another right wing POS. When are you heading up to the Yukon? -- More like 'out to the Yukon'..... refers to my boat, a Princecraft Yukon |
Logic question
"YukonBound" wrote in message
... "John H" wrote in message ... I think Harry is telling Bob to post various articles and argue a point. Bob does so, not realizing the article doesn't support his point. Bob doesn't read the article 'cause Harry said it was OK. That's what I think. -- John H Don't attempt to "think". It's not your strong suit! Look who's talking. snerk -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
"YukonBound" wrote in message
... "Harry " wrote in message ... On 8/18/10 10:38 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 6:45 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! You find train wrecks funny? You're one weird goofball. He is just another right wing POS. When are you heading up to the Yukon? -- More like 'out to the Yukon'..... refers to my boat, a Princecraft Yukon Ahhh! Such a noble craft. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
Logic question
YukonBound wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... I think Harry is telling Bob to post various articles and argue a point. Bob does so, not realizing the article doesn't support his point. Bob doesn't read the article 'cause Harry said it was OK. That's what I think. -- John H Don't attempt to "think". It's not your strong suit! You stole that line from me, dummy. |
Logic question
YukonBound wrote:
"Harry " wrote in message ... On 8/18/10 10:38 PM, YukonBound wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Aug 18, 6:45 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack wrote: On Aug 18, 5:56 pm, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:40:12 -0400, Larry wrote: Jack wrote: On Aug 17, 5:48 pm, wrote: What about "a *decrease* in married-couple households who tend to have two earners" does your dumb ass not understand? From YOUR OWN LINK!! Seriously bob, you're mental. Deranged. Retarded. cya While every thing you said is true, Bob is incapable of understanding it. ah. so fairy tales are true? no wonder the right has run the US into the ground It was your own link, bob. Are you in the habit of posting fairy tales? you never learned to read in school, did you? because this is NOT an isolated piece of data, as you seem to think. it has to be linked with OTHER data on individual income vs family income, the changes in demographics (dual vs single income households), and changes in income by income group. that's why right wingers are losers. you guys can't think. You are hilarious. You're the one that screams "where's the data! here's mine!", and then your own data proves your statements wrong. Reading your posts are like watching a really funny trainwreck in slow motion. Please don't stop! You find train wrecks funny? You're one weird goofball. He is just another right wing POS. When are you heading up to the Yukon? -- More like 'out to the Yukon'..... refers to my boat, a Princecraft Yukon Say what? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com