"Income Inequality": So What?

[Fordsflylow]

How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?

Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?

Apparently you think the buyer is thee most important vs the builder?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No one is killing off the middle class but the middle class themselves. If your income is stagnant, look to your worth in the "system"

If you're still working making wagons for Conestoga, you need to adapt. People aren't buying covered wagons and there are already more than enough wheelwrights to fill what little demand there is. People that move up and out of the middle class are those who learn new skills, develop new products or create a demand for their services, not the guy that thinks the government should subsidize the prairie schooner industry.

In the real world, what you claim is hooey. Your ability to live in a world of theory and principle is admirable, but to attempt to impose that world of yours onto the real world is

The overwhelming majority of people do not work in places where improving ones skills and acquiring new ones is going to happen.

ex: Everyone who works for GM. What do they all do? Quit? Go to school? Are you mad? Create a demand for services? What do you propose everyone go into marketing?

I agree that individuals should try to learn new skills, develop new products, but that is no way to form an economic and jobs policy. Applying the micro, what works with individuals to the macro plan is just plain stupid. Apples and oranges

1) Of course, not everyone is going to become the next Bill Gates, but it is not my fault or the fault of government, if you don't. It is government's duty to ensure equal opportunity, not equal rewards.

I have no desire for people to be poor. Poor people can't afford to buy my products. I have no control over your wallet. That's all on you, pal.

1) you had no disagreement here, yet you ask as if you did.

Maybe some guy named Adam Smith can help you out here?

"But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

and "Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low."

 

[Fordsflylow]

I'm sorry you're one of those people too stupid or lazy to get to the top.

...and you would know how exactly? Folks like you are downers!

Sorry you find the reality of having to actually work and achieve for what you get such a "downer", but none of us is your mommy, and we don't feel obligated to make you feel better about being a loser.

That's quite the assumption. Total waste of pixels that is.

Next!

 

[Fordsflylow]

You think Romney isn't smart and hasn't worked hard?

OK, in addition to being a loser, you're also stupid. I think we see a pattern emerging here.

That is EXACTLY what I'm stating! He's a rich punk and born a rich punk who has never worked a day in his life in comparison to blue collar workers. Why would you defend such a crook unless of course you are a crook also.

Nope, not even close to being stupid, but do wholeheartedly disagree with your long line of knee-deep bs. Nice try though, just the same!

OK, so Romney never worked at Bain, he never had anything to do with the Olympics, he was never governor of Mass.
I'd like for you to meet reality sometime.

Amazing to me that ANYONE feels the need to go to bat for some rich pos who shuffles papers for a living, if you are a blue collar worker. Unless of course you either misled OR, are a rich pos too, feeling the need to defend other wealthy pos'.

 

[Ernie S.]

How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?

Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?

Apparently you think the buyer is thee most important vs the builder?

No sir. The EARNER is more important than the person who whines because he doesn't earn what he thinks he should.
In order for someone to be handed something "on a silver platter" someone before him had to earn the money to buy said platter.
Your ancestors, nor YOUR government, did not EARN Mitt Romney's silver platter. You don't get what his ancestors earned and neither do I.

 

[Ernie S.]

That is EXACTLY what I'm stating! He's a rich punk and born a rich punk who has never worked a day in his life in comparison to blue collar workers. Why would you defend such a crook unless of course you are a crook also.

Nope, not even close to being stupid, but do wholeheartedly disagree with your long line of knee-deep bs. Nice try though, just the same!

OK, so Romney never worked at Bain, he never had anything to do with the Olympics, he was never governor of Mass.
I'd like for you to meet reality sometime.

Amazing to me that ANYONE feels the need to go to bat for some rich pos who shuffles papers for a living, if you are a blue collar worker. Unless of course you either misled OR, are a rich pos too, feeling the need to defend other wealthy pos'.

What makes your ditch digging career as worthy as someone who's intellect has actually created something of value? You make money digging holes, Johnny Depp with his acting talent and others with their brain. Seeing that there are far fewer people with the talents of a Gates than the ability to build a Big Mac, the Gates of this world earn a much higher salary.

 

[Ernie S.]

In the real world, what you claim is hooey. Your ability to live in a world of theory and principle is admirable, but to attempt to impose that world of yours onto the real world is

The overwhelming majority of people do not work in places where improving ones skills and acquiring new ones is going to happen.

ex: Everyone who works for GM. What do they all do? Quit? Go to school? Are you mad? Create a demand for services? What do you propose everyone go into marketing?

I agree that individuals should try to learn new skills, develop new products, but that is no way to form an economic and jobs policy. Applying the micro, what works with individuals to the macro plan is just plain stupid. Apples and oranges

1) Of course, not everyone is going to become the next Bill Gates, but it is not my fault or the fault of government, if you don't. It is government's duty to ensure equal opportunity, not equal rewards.

I have no desire for people to be poor. Poor people can't afford to buy my products. I have no control over your wallet. That's all on you, pal.

1) you had no disagreement here, yet you ask as if you did.

Maybe some guy named Adam Smith can help you out here?

"But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

and "Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low."

While paying a higher wage does promote better productivity and moral, paying labor vastly more than it's worth promotes complacency and lack of ambition. I WANT people who want to become more valuable to me, not people who think they deserve more than they're worth.

 

[regent]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

Kenneth Galbraith former professor of economics at Harvard studied the Great Depression in some detail. He lists the four main causes and the first is "Income Inequality." But we do not learn from our history so we must continually repeat it, warts and all. If you have to ask where the govenment has the power to affect the economy you might want to start in with a book on the Constitution first.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Which is exactly why I no longer work for pos like you and never will again. I have my own biz now and don't subscribe to any of the nonsense spewed here by you and your ilk bamy boy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) Of course, not everyone is going to become the next Bill Gates, but it is not my fault or the fault of government, if you don't. It is government's duty to ensure equal opportunity, not equal rewards.

I have no desire for people to be poor. Poor people can't afford to buy my products. I have no control over your wallet. That's all on you, pal.

1) you had no disagreement here, yet you ask as if you did.

Maybe some guy named Adam Smith can help you out here?

"But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

and "Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low."

While paying a higher wage does promote better productivity and moral, paying labor vastly more than it's worth promotes complacency and lack of ambition. I WANT people who want to become more valuable to me, not people who think they deserve more than they're worth.

paying vastly more? what like minimum wage?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is exactly why I no longer work for pos like you and never will again. I have my own biz now and don't subscribe to any of the nonsense spewed here by you and your ilk bamy boy.

good for you.

Now stfu and pay for your health care or come up with the shared responsibility payment.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Kenneth Galbraith former professor of economics at Harvard studied the Great Depression in some detail. He lists the four main causes and the first is "Income Inequality." But we do not learn from our history so we must continually repeat it, warts and all. If you have to ask where the govenment has the power to affect the economy you might want to start in with a book on the Constitution first.

Until the upper 1% and mega-corporation's are no longer an influence in what was once We The People's gov nothing will change for the better. This current BS is NOT capitalism regardless the spin by the right that it is after allowing for merger after merger until we now have "too big to fail. "

 

[The Rabbi]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

Kenneth Galbraith former professor of economics at Harvard studied the Great Depression in some detail. He lists the four main causes and the first is "Income Inequality." But we do not learn from our history so we must continually repeat it, warts and all. If you have to ask where the govenment has the power to affect the economy you might want to start in with a book on the Constitution first.

No one believes Galbraith. Where specifically in the Constitution does it mention "income inequality" or anything like that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is exactly why I no longer work for pos like you and never will again. I have my own biz now and don't subscribe to any of the nonsense spewed here by you and your ilk bamy boy.

I dont think "freelance spittoon cleaner" is much of a job. But hey, I admire your entrepreneurial spirit.

 

[Ernie S.]

Which is exactly why I no longer work for pos like you and never will again. I have my own biz now and don't subscribe to any of the nonsense spewed here by you and your ilk bamy boy.

I wish you well, but I fear that your current boss will turn out to be a bigger prick than all the others.

 

[Ernie S.]

1) you had no disagreement here, yet you ask as if you did.

Maybe some guy named Adam Smith can help you out here?

"But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

and "Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low."

While paying a higher wage does promote better productivity and moral, paying labor vastly more than it's worth promotes complacency and lack of ambition. I WANT people who want to become more valuable to me, not people who think they deserve more than they're worth.

paying vastly more? what like minimum wage?

Nope by vastly more, I mean what Fordsflylow thinks he's worth.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Nope by vastly more, I mean what Fordsflylow thinks he's worth.

Oh, but I'm sure you think you are worth more lol

 

[Staidhup]

Income inequality is just another feeble liberal slogan justifying raising taxes. The funny part is that there are lame uninformed morons that buy into it and for one reason or another think that expanding government is the cure all to what ever ails the country. To think people don't understand as to why this country is so fucked up in the first place.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Real patriots? I think not!

The American People Are Angry - YouTube

 

[Ernie S.]

Nope by vastly more, I mean what Fordsflylow thinks he's worth.

Oh, but I'm sure you think you are worth more lol

I assume I am after reading your blather. What is your business? I designed scientific instruments before I retired.