Can there ever be too much income inequality?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rdean, Oct 29, 2011.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,031
    Thanks Received:
    6,880
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,895
    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.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    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?
     
  2. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,853
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,739
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Horseshit.

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

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,031
    Thanks Received:
    6,880
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,895
    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.
     
  6. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,608
    Thanks Received:
    6,449
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,419
    That Christie dude seems a little light in his loafers.
     
  7. bitterlyclingin
    Offline

    bitterlyclingin Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,076
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +449
    Never!
     
  8. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,608
    Thanks Received:
    6,449
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,419
    Not Chris........................
     
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    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.
     
  10. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    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.
     

Share This Page