Jump to content
drvoke

REPORT: U.S. Wealth Gap Worst in a Century

Recommended Posts

On 2/12/2019 at 6:41 PM, BIGTEX said:

What wealthy person has prevented you from making as much money as you are capable of making?

 

BE SPECIFIC.

Big Tex             IS THIS SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR YOU?

 

AUGUST 7, 2018

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

BY DREW DESILVER

On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.

But despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.   

 

The disconnect between the job market and workers’ paychecks has fueled much of the recent activism in states and cities around raising minimum wages, and it also has become a factor in at least some of this year’s congressional campaigns.

Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013. But in the years just before the 2007-08 financial collapse, average hourly earnings often increased by around 4% year-over-year. And during the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 7%, 8% or even 9% year-over-year.

 

After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.  

 

A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars

 

Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course – health insurance, retirement-account contributions, tuition reimbursement, transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

 

Wage stagnation has been a subject of much economic analysis and commentary, though perhaps predictably there’s little agreement about what’s causing it (or, indeed, whether the BLS data adequately capture what’s going on). One theory is that rising benefit costs – particularly employer-provided health insurance – may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise cash wages. According to BLS-generated compensation cost indices, total benefit costs for all civilian workers have risen an inflation-adjusted 22.5% since 2001 (when the data series began), versus 5.3% for wage and salary costs.

 

Other factors that have been suggested include the continuing decline of labor unions; lagging educational attainmentrelative to other countries; noncompete clauses and other restrictions on job-switching; a large pool of potential workers who are outside the formally defined labor force, neither employed nor seeking work; and broad employment declines in manufacturing and production sectors and a consequent shift toward job growth in low-wage industries.

 

Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212).

 

 

 

IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE 1% DOESN'T WANT ALL OF THE MONEY, I HAVE SOME LAND TO SELL YOU IN THE TEXAS PANHANDLE.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mindy09 said:

Big Tex             IS THIS SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR YOU?

 

AUGUST 7, 2018

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

BY DREW DESILVER

On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.

But despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.   

 

The disconnect between the job market and workers’ paychecks has fueled much of the recent activism in states and cities around raising minimum wages, and it also has become a factor in at least some of this year’s congressional campaigns.

Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013. But in the years just before the 2007-08 financial collapse, average hourly earnings often increased by around 4% year-over-year. And during the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 7%, 8% or even 9% year-over-year.

 

After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.  

 

A similar measure – the “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time wage and salary workers – tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter of 1979 (when the data series began) to $879 in the second quarter of this year, which might sound like a lot. But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the median has barely budged over that period: That $232 in 1979 had the same purchasing power as $840 in today’s dollars

 

Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course – health insurance, retirement-account contributions, tuition reimbursement, transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

 

Wage stagnation has been a subject of much economic analysis and commentary, though perhaps predictably there’s little agreement about what’s causing it (or, indeed, whether the BLS data adequately capture what’s going on). One theory is that rising benefit costs – particularly employer-provided health insurance – may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise cash wages. According to BLS-generated compensation cost indices, total benefit costs for all civilian workers have risen an inflation-adjusted 22.5% since 2001 (when the data series began), versus 5.3% for wage and salary costs.

 

Other factors that have been suggested include the continuing decline of labor unions; lagging educational attainmentrelative to other countries; noncompete clauses and other restrictions on job-switching; a large pool of potential workers who are outside the formally defined labor force, neither employed nor seeking work; and broad employment declines in manufacturing and production sectors and a consequent shift toward job growth in low-wage industries.

 

Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212).

 

 

 

IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE 1% DOESN'T WANT ALL OF THE MONEY, I HAVE SOME LAND TO SELL YOU IN THE TEXAS PANHANDLE.    

 

NO, BABYCAKES.

 

Not only is your post NOT SPECIFIC, it  is NOT GERMAINE to the question BIGTEX posed.

 

There are LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE - MILLIONS OF THEM, IN FACT, who make over $250K per year.

 

There are LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE - HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, IN FACT, who make over $500K per year.

 

There are LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE - TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, IN FACT, who make over $1KK per year.

 

WHAT WEALTHY PERSON HAS DECIDED TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE LOTS OF MONEY, BUT THAT SAME WEALTHY PERSON HAS NOT ALLOWED YOU TO MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY?

 

WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO ARE REFUSING TO ALLOW YOU TO MAKE, SAY, $250K PER YEAR?

 

(Watch this, folks!)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... so the American economy is booming, and Americans are doing the best they have in YEARS... with the unemployment rate being the lowest in history... add to that something approaching 30 million illegals in the country to start, and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS more coming every year... and those affected and impaired by Mexican drugs and addiction, at the absolute BOTTOM of the "wealth" spectrum...

 

Isn't it UNDERSTANDABLE why the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest is growing?

 

BUT, lets think about it another way... yes, there are MANY EXTREMELY rich people in America... there are ALSO MILLIONS and MILLIONS of the poorest people in the WORLD trying to get into America, because we are one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on EARTH !!    Is that WORSE than being a country like Venezuela, the Socialist UTOPIA that it is, where the disparity between the rich and the poor might be narrower, but at the bottom people are STARVING in the streets?

 

GET a CLUE !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

Hmmm... so the American economy is booming, and Americans are doing the best they have in YEARS... with the unemployment rate being the lowest in history... add to that something approaching 30 million illegals in the country to start, and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS more coming every year... and those affected and impaired by Mexican drugs and addiction, at the absolute BOTTOM of the "wealth" spectrum...

 

Isn't it UNDERSTANDABLE why the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest is growing?

 

BUT, lets think about it another way... yes, there are MANY EXTREMELY rich people in America... there are ALSO MILLIONS and MILLIONS of the poorest people in the WORLD trying to get into America, because we are one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on EARTH !!    Is that WORSE than being a country like Venezuela, the Socialist UTOPIA that it is, where the disparity between the rich and the poor might be narrower, but at the bottom people are STARVING in the streets?

 

GET a CLUE !!

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) looks at unemployment in each state on a monthly basis. Most of the states with the lowest unemployment rates have populations that identify as Republican. American Enterprise Institute Scholar Mark Perry notes it’s likely due to those states pursuing more business-friendly policies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 8:50 PM, Crom33 said:

I know you're poor - but if you get a real degree and make a good living - we're living in the best economic times since 1960.  I need you to get a hold of yourself.

 

I just bought a new car - the 2019 Rav 4 XLE Premium.  It's very nice.  I had a 2016 Mazda CX-5, but I wasn't impressed so I paid that one off and bought a new car.

 

You could have this too instead of bitching.  Just think about it.

I sold my 2017 Honda Odyssey (special edition) and bought a new 2018 RAV 4  Hybird (Limited) in Jan of 2018.  The '17 Odyssey wasn't up to the 2005 Odyssey I bought new too.

 

However, there is where we differ, I have empathy and an understanding of microeconomics, both of which you seem to ignore.  Yes, most who have post graduate degrees are doing well, earning north of 100k annually, but most are contractors who need to buy their own health insurance and plan for a retirement well into the future.

 

[As an example, my son who has degrees in Math and Computer Science worked in the technology field for two companies; both terminated his contract, along with dozens more who would have become tenured at the end of the first year of employment.  After his second and similar experience he went to work for UPS.  He earned $96,000+ this year, has health insurance provided by the Teamsters Union which is free and there is zero cost for a co-payment, with the doctor of his own choosing; he owns a rental property and drives a brand knew Chevy Bolt.

 

But I digress.  The great incomes earned by the masters of the universe do not trickle down.  Most can't afford to buy a home, and even Condo's in the Bay Area are high and carry HOA's of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Yet the worker bees, clerks, secretaries, custodians, etc. generally commute 3 or more hours a day, solely so they can afford a place to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 10:29 AM, BIGTEX said:

NO, BABYCAKES.

 

Not only is your post NOT SPECIFIC, it  is NOT GERMAINE to the question BIGTEX posed.

 

There are LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE - MILLIONS OF THEM, IN FACT, who make over $250K per year.

 

There are LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE - HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, IN FACT, who make over $500K per year.

 

There are LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE - TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, IN FACT, who make over $1KK per year.

 

WHAT WEALTHY PERSON HAS DECIDED TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE LOTS OF MONEY, BUT THAT SAME WEALTHY PERSON HAS NOT ALLOWED YOU TO MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY?

 

WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO ARE REFUSING TO ALLOW YOU TO MAKE, SAY, $250K PER YEAR?

 

(Watch this, folks!)

 

 

There are millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck  "The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a median personal income of $865 weekly for all full-time workers in 2017. The U.S Bureau of the Census has the annual median personal income at $31,099 in 2016"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

 

More accurately:  https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189  See here:

 

Real median household income was $61,372. At first glance, it was a new record. But the Census warns that it modified its questions. As a result, the household income was about the same as in 2007 and 1999. The Census reports household income in Table HINC-01.

The federal government uses the median household income to establish poverty levels. That determines eligibility for Obamacare subsidies and welfare programs

Real median family income was $75,938. The real mean family income was $100,400. The government uses the family income for statistical purposes, such as reporting the poverty threshold. The Census reports family income in Table FINC-01.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody chooses to live paycheck to paycheck but some people end up there for a variety of reasons - many of which are beyond their control.  Do we help them out or do we rub their noses in it?  Republicans choose to rub their noses in it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

Nobody chooses to live paycheck to paycheck but some people end up there for a variety of reasons - many of which are beyond their control.  Do we help them out or do we rub their noses in it?  Republicans choose to rub their noses in it. 

 

 

I know a couple who gross $200k and live paycheck to paycheck. Living beyond your means is a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WryCatcher said:

There are millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck  "The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a median personal income of $865 weekly for all full-time workers in 2017. The U.S Bureau of the Census has the annual median personal income at $31,099 in 2016"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

 

More accurately:  https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189  See here:

 

Real median household income was $61,372. At first glance, it was a new record. But the Census warns that it modified its questions. As a result, the household income was about the same as in 2007 and 1999. The Census reports household income in Table HINC-01.

The federal government uses the median household income to establish poverty levels. That determines eligibility for Obamacare subsidies and welfare programs

Real median family income was $75,938. The real mean family income was $100,400. The government uses the family income for statistical purposes, such as reporting the poverty threshold. The Census reports family income in Table FINC-01.

 

And your unfathomable point is . . . WHAT?

 

What does your post have ANYTHING to do with this subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

Hmmm... so the American economy is booming, and Americans are doing the best they have in YEARS... with the unemployment rate being the lowest in history... add to that something approaching 30 million illegals in the country to start, and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS more coming every year... and those affected and impaired by Mexican drugs and addiction, at the absolute BOTTOM of the "wealth" spectrum...

 

Isn't it UNDERSTANDABLE why the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest is growing?

 

BUT, lets think about it another way... yes, there are MANY EXTREMELY rich people in America... there are ALSO MILLIONS and MILLIONS of the poorest people in the WORLD trying to get into America, because we are one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on EARTH !!    Is that WORSE than being a country like Venezuela, the Socialist UTOPIA that it is, where the disparity between the rich and the poor might be narrower, but at the bottom people are STARVING in the streets?

 

GET a CLUE !!

Excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WryCatcher said:

I sold my 2017 Honda Odyssey (special edition) and bought a new 2018 RAV 4  Hybird (Limited) in Jan of 2018.  The '17 Odyssey wasn't up to the 2005 Odyssey I bought new too.

 

However, there is where we differ, I have empathy and an understanding of microeconomics, both of which you seem to ignore.  Yes, most who have post graduate degrees are doing well, earning north of 100k annually, but most are contractors who need to buy their own health insurance and plan for a retirement well into the future.

 

[As an example, my son who has degrees in Math and Computer Science worked in the technology field for two companies; both terminated his contract, along with dozens more who would have become tenured at the end of the first year of employment.  After his second and similar experience he went to work for UPS.  He earned $96,000+ this year, has health insurance provided by the Teamsters Union which is free and there is zero cost for a co-payment, with the doctor of his own choosing; he owns a rental property and drives a brand knew Chevy Bolt.

 

But I digress.  The great incomes earned by the masters of the universe do not trickle down.  Most can't afford to buy a home, and even Condo's in the Bay Area are high and carry HOA's of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Yet the worker bees, clerks, secretaries, custodians, etc. generally commute 3 or more hours a day, solely so they can afford a place to live.

Then MOVE AWAY from the Bay Area!

 

DUHHHHHHH!

 

It's a filthy, feces-and-needle-strewn *&^%hole by ANY DECENT PERSON'S STANDARDS!

 

 

But, DO  NOT COME TO TEXAS.

 

We don't want ANYONE from California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont or Pennsylvania!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

Nobody chooses to live paycheck to paycheck but some people end up there for a variety of reasons - many of which are beyond their control.  Do we help them out or do we rub their noses in it?  Republicans choose to rub their noses in it. 

 

 

We HELP THEM OUT by ENSURING that each and every socialist program proposed is SHOVED SO FAR BACK INTO THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL THAT THEY NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mindy09 said:

I'm right here sugar-britches.

 

Now shut up.

Why have you not answered BIGTEX' question, babycakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BIGTEX said:

Why have you not answered BIGTEX' question, babycakes?

I'm not taking questions today sugar-britches.

 

You already read my answer.    You know it's the truth, and I'm not going to talk about salaries with republicans who believe there shouldn't even be a minimum wage, a 40-hour work week, holidays off for most employees, Labor Day, paid sick time, paid family leave, paid maternity leave, or anything else that benefits a working man.   

 

We both know which side of the fence we're on, sugar-britches, so there's no use in belaboring the point.    

 

BTW:   You can thank a lefty for any benefits you may have had in your employment history.    You're welcome.

 

Now go think about that and come back when you don't feel sheepish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BIGTEX said:

We HELP THEM OUT by ENSURING that each and every socialist program proposed is SHOVED SO FAR BACK INTO THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL THAT THEY NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY!

 

Social programs, not socialist programs. 

 

Nobody is surprised that Texxy doesn't understand the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mindy09 said:

I'm not taking questions today sugar-britches.

 

You already read my answer.    You know it's the truth, and I'm not going to talk about salaries with republicans who believe there shouldn't even be a minimum wage, a 40-hour work week, holidays off for most employees, Labor Day, paid sick time, paid family leave, paid maternity leave, or anything else that benefits a working man.   

 

We both know which side of the fence we're on, sugar-britches, so there's no use in belaboring the point.    

 

BTW:   You can thank a lefty for any benefits you may have had in your employment history.    You're welcome.

 

Now go think about that and come back when you don't feel sheepish.

You're not taking any questions because you CANNOT ANSWER the question BIGTEX posed.

 

Your ignorance leads you to believe that wealth is finite and that wealthy people are "hogging all the money."

 

And, for your information, babycakes, there should be NO government-mandated minimum (or maximum) wage.  NO ONE has the right to tell BIGTEX what wage he must pay his employees.

 

BIGTEX, being self-employed, has NEVER had a paid vacation, paid sick leave, or any other such frivolities, and he pays for his health insurance, life insurance and disability insurance 100% out of his own pocket.

 

BIGTEX does not rely on ANYONE ELSE for his support and financial well-being.

 

It's GOOD to be BIGTEX!

 

P. S.:  When you DO decide to take questions, ANSWER THE ONE BIGTEX POSED TO YOU, BABYCAKES!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

 

Social programs, not socialist programs. 

 

Nobody is surprised that Texxy doesn't understand the difference. 

SOCIALIST PROGRAMS, idiot!

 

The setting of wages by the government is SOCIALISM. 

 

The mandating of paid sick leave is SOCIALISM.

 

They are both prime examples of the government CONFISCATING THE WEALTH OF ONE PERSON AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER PERSON.

 

THAT is SOCIALISM.

 

No one is surprised that you don't know the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BIGTEX said:

Then MOVE AWAY from the Bay Area!

 

DUHHHHHHH!

 

It's a filthy, feces-and-needle-strewn *&^%hole by ANY DECENT PERSON'S STANDARDS!

 

 

But, DO  NOT COME TO TEXAS.

 

We don't want ANYONE from California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont or Pennsylvania!

 

I've been to Texas, my Sister-in-law her husband and our nephew and his two kids, and my niece all live in or around Houston.  My wife and I visited Houston and spent a W/E in San Antonio; took a cruise out of Galveston and on our return went to a BBQ in ?Greenville? with the extended family.

 

I was surprised that so many of the people we met were sane and not pompous assholes, since the first group of Texans I met were pompous assholes and dumb as dumb can be.  That was 1967 when I went to boot camp in San Diego (NTCSD).  I was 19 at the time, these clowns from Texas acted like two year olds.

 

BTW, Did you go to boot camp in San Diego in 1967?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, WryCatcher said:

 

I've been to Texas, my Sister-in-law her husband and our nephew and his two kids, and my niece all live in or around Houston.  My wife and I visited Houston and spent a W/E in San Antonio; took a cruise out of Galveston and on our return went to a BBQ in ?Greenville? with the extended family.

 

I was surprised that so many of the people we met were sane and not pompous assholes, since the first group of Texans I met were pompous assholes and dumb as dumb can be.  That was 1967 when I went to boot camp in San Diego (NTCSD).  I was 19 at the time, these clowns from Texas acted like two year olds.

 

BTW, Did you go to boot camp in San Diego in 1967?

BIGTEX was not even born as of 1967.

 

Being pompous is analogous to bragging, and, in the words of the late, great Dizzy Dean, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."

 

You were upstaged and outclassed by the Texans so badly that you still cannot get over it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, babycakes!

 

You STILL have not answered the question BIGTEX posed.

 

Surely you can step up to the plate and not let all the other liberal idiots down!

 

Come on, babycakes.

 

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mindy09 said:

I'm not taking questions today sugar-britches.

 

You already read my answer.    You know it's the truth, and I'm not going to talk about salaries with republicans who believe there shouldn't even be a minimum wage, a 40-hour work week, holidays off for most employees, Labor Day, paid sick time, paid family leave, paid maternity leave, or anything else that benefits a working man.   

 

We both know which side of the fence we're on, sugar-britches, so there's no use in belaboring the point.    

 

BTW:   You can thank a lefty for any benefits you may have had in your employment history.    You're welcome.

 

Now go think about that and come back when you don't feel sheepish.

 

HA!! TYPICAL Liberal... MAKING UP facts, to support their BONE HEADED Opinions, of what "truth" is...  

 

THEN, they KNOW they can't answer the question, SO, they LIE about their LIES... Liberals are SO STUPID, it's really JUST SAD !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×