Can there ever be too much income inequality?

[rdean]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

 

[theHawk]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

 

[Chris]

Here is what happens when there is too much income inequality....

Adherents of most historical models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Economic factors included hunger and malnutrition in the most destitute segments of the population, due to rising bread prices (from a normal 8 sous for a four-pound loaf to 12 sous by the end of 1789),[4] after several years of poor grain harvests. Bad harvests (caused in part by extreme weather from El Niño along with volcanic activity at Laki and Grímsvötn), rising food prices, and an inadequate transportation system that hindered the shipment of bulk foods from rural areas to large population centers contributed greatly to the destabilization of French society in the years leading up to the Revolution.

Another cause was the state's effective bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars, particularly the financial strain caused by French participation in the American Revolutionary War. The national debt amounted to some 1,000–2,000 million[citation needed] livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the loss of France's colonial possessions in North America and the growing commercial dominance of Great Britain. France's inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both partially caused and exacerbated by the burden of an inadequate system of taxation. To obtain new money to head off default on the government's loans, the king called an Assembly of Notables in 1787.

Meanwhile, the royal court at Versailles was seen as being isolated from, and indifferent to, the hardships of the lower classes. While in theory King Louis XVI was an absolute monarch, in practice he was often indecisive and known to back down when faced with strong opposition. While he did reduce government expenditures, opponents in the parlements successfully thwarted his attempts at enacting much needed reforms. Those who were opposed to Louis' policies further undermined royal authority by distributing pamphlets (often reporting false or exaggerated information) that criticized the government and its officials, stirring up public opinion against the monarchy.[5]

French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chris]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

 

[rdean]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Wall Street was deregulated when Republicans held majorities in both houses, the presidency and even the Supreme Court for 6 straight years. This is why they were able to pass massive tax cuts going mostly to the wealthy costing the country trillions by using reconciliation DURING A TIME OF WAR. The drugs for votes bill costing another trillion, again through reconciliation. Then all the "no bid" contracts in Iraq. From 2001 to 2008, working with the Chamber of Commerce and China, they helped move millions of jobs to China.

With an economy as large as ours, you can't destroy it overnight. Republicans have showed us it takes years. They were given a surplus and handed Obama 11 trillion in debt. That took 8 years.

And you can't possibly say anything I just said is not true. It's all a matter of public record. Everything I just listed has been posted WITH LINKS again and again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That Christie dude seems a little light in his loafers.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Never!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not Chris........................

 

[editec]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

 

[California Girl]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

Ahhh, finally someone who shows a little bit of common sense.

Rdweeb, Crispy .... and truthdont'matter are all irrational whackjobs. Bill Mayer would be proud of them.

 

[Douger]

Never !

 

[PeteEU]

Income inequality is one of the biggest threats to any society. The higher the income inequality the bigger the threat of the collapse of society.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

First, Clinton did not reign over anyone.

Second, thinking liberals have REPEATEDLY noted Clinton's role in the matter. You are projecting your inability to accept inconvenient truth upon those of us who INSIST upon doing so.

 

[Care4all]

serfs and lords?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you make to much deany give me half of your belongings

 

[Care4all]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

actually, there were some measures of regulation in the bill that were not implemented under the last administration....the bill passed under clinton was NOT completely regulation free.

 

[editec]

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

First, Clinton did not reign over anyone.

Second, thinking liberals have REPEATEDLY noted Clinton's role in the matter. You are projecting your inability to accept inconvenient truth upon those of us who INSIST upon doing so.

No, LL, I am merely giving you a FACT.

It was under the admin of WJC that derivatives were BY LAW, not regulated.

Understand they didn't just NOT regulate, they wrote a NEW law that specifically made REGULATION of dereivatives NOT legal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's plenty of GUILT to go around and Clinton owns HIS share of it.

 

[editec]

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

actually, there were some measures of regulation in the bill that were not implemented under the last administration....the bill passed under clinton was NOT completely regulation free.

Thanks for the additional input.

Here's what Clinton himself thinks about this issue

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives*


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ce-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/

 

[code1211]

Here is what happens when there is too much income inequality....

Adherents of most historical models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Economic factors included hunger and malnutrition in the most destitute segments of the population, due to rising bread prices (from a normal 8 sous for a four-pound loaf to 12 sous by the end of 1789),[4] after several years of poor grain harvests. Bad harvests (caused in part by extreme weather from El Niño along with volcanic activity at Laki and Grímsvötn), rising food prices, and an inadequate transportation system that hindered the shipment of bulk foods from rural areas to large population centers contributed greatly to the destabilization of French society in the years leading up to the Revolution.

Another cause was the state's effective bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars, particularly the financial strain caused by French participation in the American Revolutionary War. The national debt amounted to some 1,000–2,000 million[citation needed] livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the loss of France's colonial possessions in North America and the growing commercial dominance of Great Britain. France's inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both partially caused and exacerbated by the burden of an inadequate system of taxation. To obtain new money to head off default on the government's loans, the king called an Assembly of Notables in 1787.

Meanwhile, the royal court at Versailles was seen as being isolated from, and indifferent to, the hardships of the lower classes. While in theory King Louis XVI was an absolute monarch, in practice he was often indecisive and known to back down when faced with strong opposition. While he did reduce government expenditures, opponents in the parlements successfully thwarted his attempts at enacting much needed reforms. Those who were opposed to Louis' policies further undermined royal authority by distributing pamphlets (often reporting false or exaggerated information) that criticized the government and its officials, stirring up public opinion against the monarchy.[5]

French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are we supposed to draw parallels to the USA of today?

Malnutrition in France? Obesity in the USA.

Failing crop harvests in France? Thanks to the internal combustion engine and the use of fossil fuels, farmers are producing too much and are paid to not farm.

Inadequate transportation inn France? A transportation system so smooth and advanced globally that the transport of goods globally allows access to and from every market in the world using fossil fuels and the various engines that burn them.

France's debt is too big? Obama's plan is to make the debt of the USA bigger.

Inadequate system of taxation? If anything, the system of the USA is too adequate.

Those who oppose the monarch obama do stir up public opinion about him. Thank God!

The problem with the gap between rich and poor in the USA is based on one thing: There is no ceiling. Having nothing still means having nothing. The floor is established. The gap between those with nothing grows not because the poor get poorer, but because the rich get richer.

The gap represents the possiblity, not the failure. If you read history, there have always been poor. There have never been as many rich as there currently are. When I was a child, 1 phone, 1 TV, one car, public schools and strict budgeting was middle class.

Now it's various phones, various TV's, multiple cars, heated garage, computers, private schools and credit cards. The definitions of what middles class and poor are have changed to accomodate the incredible rise in the economic possiblities.

The system has worked. The system is working. The system is under attack by you and your cronies who seek to destroy it.

 

[JoeB131]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

Well, it's Bill Maher, not Bill Mayer. I think he's alledgely a comedian, but he has yet to actually be funny.

To the point, though, the question you ask is wrong. It's not what is an unacceptable level of income inequality, it's a question of is the government the best agency to decide what is "fair"?

And the answer to that is a resounding, no. They suck at that pretty much like they suck at just about everything else.

The problem is that we don't have enough jobs in this country because big corporations just find it easier to set up shop in another country.

Republicans have made this too easy by setting up ridiculous free trade rules.

Democrats have made this an easy choice by too many regulations, and protecting a public education system that produces idiots just dim enough to vote for Democrats, but too dumb to hold down a real job.

Businesses are in the business of making money,not producing jobs. The ideal business is one that would make millions without employing anyone.

And when times are tough, they find ways of doing more with less. It's truly Darwinian in its approach.