Originally posted by @shavixmirDid you purposely call yourself out?
I hear the whining... but I don’t see the questions being answered.
Is that because the answers don’t fit the agenda?
Originally posted by @freakykbhWell, if you go back, you'll notice I've answered the question. And posed a few of my own.
Did you purposely call yourself out?
Oh. You're not interested. Well, thanks for your input then. Scuttle back to your den and leave the big people alone.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleAre you suggesting rich lobby groups and lobby groups for the rich don’t have more say in government policy that the normal voter?
CHECKMATE!!!
Are there more or less people living in poverty in the US now than in the 90’s, 70’s, 50’s?
Can someone without money become an elected representative in the Senate?
If so, how many elected senators come from families who lived below the poverty line? That, I believe is 1/7th of the US population.
Originally posted by @shavixmirI saw your claims and answered them.
Well, if you go back, you'll notice I've answered the question. And posed a few of my own.
Oh. You're not interested. Well, thanks for your input then. Scuttle back to your den and leave the big people alone.
Refrain from insults and keep focused on the conversation to see if something can be learned.
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou didn’t answer one of my questions.
I saw your claims and answered them.
Refrain from insults and keep focused on the conversation to see if something can be learned.
Stop telling porky pies.
Originally posted by @shavixmir"Can someone without money become an elected representative in the Senate? "
Are you suggesting rich lobby groups and lobby groups for the rich don’t have more say in government policy that the normal voter?
Are there more or less people living in poverty in the US now than in the 90’s, 70’s, 50’s?
Can someone without money become an elected representative in the Senate?
If so, how many elected senators come from families who lived below the poverty line? That, I believe is 1/7th of the US population.
HRC did.
Originally posted by @shavixmirAre you suggesting rich lobby groups and lobby groups for the rich don’t have more say in government policy that the normal voter?
Are you suggesting rich lobby groups and lobby groups for the rich don’t have more say in government policy that the normal voter?
Are there more or less people living in poverty in the US now than in the 90’s, 70’s, 50’s?
Can someone without money become an elected representative in the Senate?
If so, how many elected senators come from families who lived below the poverty line? That, I believe is 1/7th of the US population.
No.
Are there more or less people living in poverty in the US now than in the 90’s, 70’s, 50’s?
Did you purposely leave out two decades in your tortured scenario?
According to the US Census Bureau--- which is working strictly off of estimates and excessively small sample groups with which to draw conclusions--- the number of people living in what they describe as poverty has been steadily declining in recent years.
But that's not really the story.
Datum can be skewed any number of ways, often with little to no thought given to self-determinism and/or quality of life.
If a person's conscious desire is against consumerism--- something you have relentlessly, even mercilessly railed against for quite some time--- by refusing to chase after money, instead focusing their efforts on the affirmations provided by a simple life, is the USCB really allowed to label them as impoverished?
I say no.
Can someone without money become an elected representative in the Senate?
Of course.
Money is absolutely part of the voodoo, but, as we've seen repeatedly, the one so inclined certainly doesn't need their own.
If so, how many elected senators come from families who lived below the poverty line? That, I believe is 1/7th of the US population.
What possible difference does that make?
It matters not what their socio-economic background was, since the issue is what they become.
Less to begin with, simply more of a contrast--- and likely even more of their malevolence once in positions of power.
More to begin with is fine, too.
What they receive once there is beyond their wildest dreams, and none walk away empty-handed.
In fact, with very, very, very rare exceptions, none walk away, period.
I find it curious that there is such an outcry of the rich having such an influence in government when the rich have such an influence outside of government. It's almost as if the left wishes to deny reality and pretend that they can create another separate world where the rich don't have influence and power.
Moreover, it appears curious to me that they all seem eager to make the 1% even smaller, perhaps to the point of making us all peasants ruled over by a king. I would think that making more people rich would be the key to expanding their power and influence in government, and that the society with the most wealthy citizens would then become the most democratic.
Instead, they seem to only want a small oligarchy of rich bureaucrats who are super duper qualified, more so than the average citizen ever could be to be able to be a competent replacement.
3 edits
Originally posted by @whodeyMoreover, it appears curious to me that they all seem eager to make the 1% even smaller,
I find it curious that there is such an outcry of the rich having such an influence in government when the rich have such an influence outside of government. It's almost as if the left wishes to deny reality and pretend that they can create another separate world where the rich don't have influence and power.
Moreover, it appears curious to me that they ...[text shortened]... lified, more so than the average citizen ever could be to be able to be a competent replacement.
No Whodey, we're trying to make the 1% bigger, it's the 1% that's making it increasingly difficult for hard working people to get there.
Your "curiosity" is out in La La Land. 🙄
Originally posted by @mchillwell if you make it bigger it wont be 1%...head scratcher
Moreover, it appears curious to me that they all seem eager to make the 1% even smaller,
No Whodey, we're trying to make the 1% bigger, it's the 1% that's making it increasingly difficult for anyone to get there. Your "curiosity" is out in La La Land. 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleOK Skippy, I'll rephrase so it's simpler for you. We're trying to make the number of wealthy people who work hard in America bigger. I could make this a little easier for you to understand, but I left my puppets and crayons in a box upstairs. 😵
well if you make it bigger it wont be 1%...head scratcher