"Income Inequality": So What?

[logical4u]

Among the few things around here he can actually puzzle out the meaning of, I'm sure. Which is interesting, since intelligent, sane people find no meaning in Shaman's posts at all.

True again. I've had Shaman on 'ignore' for a while now and don't miss it for a minute.

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Please provide some evidence where "taxing the wealthy" does anything beneficial for the poor. Talk about Charlie Manson followers.... Knocking down people that are doing okay for themselves will not pull the ones that aren't any better off, it will leave less "scraps" for them. The ONLY people that benefit from raising taxes are the politicians. If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them.
You are preaching DESTRUCTION, not construction. It does not work out when you try to "steal" what others have for "the good" of ____________. Our country has been going that way for decades, and it is not working out; it is failing. That way makes "subjects" out of "citizens", and gives the power and the WEALTH to the rulers/tyrants. There are many countries in the world that are "ruled" that way, why do you want to change the one country that is "different" from all the rest, into the same as all the rest?

 

[logical4u]

I have two objections to "income inequality" as it is in our country today.

One is, its almost impossible to change your own situation. I'm fairly well off and I earned every cent but that's only because I started saving and investing very young. We don't teach our kids how to do that.

Second, because Rs do so much business off shore, that money does very little to help our own country. As we all know, we've been lied to about the so-called "job creators". for the most part, its the small businesses that do the hiring, not the one percent.

The exception to that, such as wal mart, hires a lot of people but the pay is crap.

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

President Obama's tax breaks for individuals, small businesses and the tax breaks the health care bill gives us help the real job creators.

Did you just say lowering taxes boosted the economy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have two objections to "income inequality" as it is in our country today.

One is, its almost impossible to change your own situation. I'm fairly well off and I earned every cent but that's only because I started saving and investing very young. We don't teach our kids how to do that.

Second, because Rs do so much business off shore, that money does very little to help our own country. As we all know, we've been lied to about the so-called "job creators". for the most part, its the small businesses that do the hiring, not the one percent.

The exception to that, such as wal mart, hires a lot of people but the pay is crap.

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

President Obama's tax breaks for individuals, small businesses and the tax breaks the health care bill gives us help the real job creators.

What bothers me about wallyworld is all the mom and pop businesses it put out of business. Now that my friend is wealth redistribution on a grand scale. The livable wage/wealth WAS spread more evenly and much better than it is now. Mega-corps should never be allowed to become even close to what is known as "too big to fail." The MaBell's should be split up again imho, just to grab one example out of mind.

Trickle-down economics is, was, and always will be a serious failure/scam.

The mom and pop businesses that went out of business is not the fault of Walmart. it is the fault of the customer who abandoned their local retailers.
Many times we're are subject to the howlings of union members who have picked Walmart as the labor anti-Christ. Meanwhile the worker's spouses shop at every discount brick and mortar outlet they can get to.
Livable/living wage is a myth. It is a term that is used by big labor to further the artificial lifting of pay without regard to economic realities.
I will agree with your angel on large corporations which are involved in many industries. These companies do not actually operate the plants or produce the products. These invisible people just own the paper.
For example....I think the federal government should go back to the old FCC rules that prohibit foreign ownership of radio and tv stations. That should extend to satellite radio, news outlets, and newspapers. Yes that includes Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp.
I also think that auto manufacturers should make autos. Airlines should fly planes, etc...
There should be no bank permitted to use it's assets to invest in markets, real estate other banks, etc. That money is the property of the customers.
I think Day Trading should be outlawed. If you buy stock in a company, you are stuck with it for ( a joke here ) 7 to 10 business days....

 

[logical4u]

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Yes.....The US Census Bureau is full of shit..
Of course it is. Because the stats don't fit the liberal template.
Since you have been long on complaining. How about a solution. What's your best idea.
And don't say increase taxes. Tell you why...No society in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
Higher taxes hurt EVERYONE.
If you believe soaking the wealthy will solve all of your problems, you're living in a parallel universe.
That additional confiscation WILL find it's way to the very people you want to enrich off the backs of the producers.
Let's say for a moment you are correct. The wealthy are sitting on cash. The why is not pertinent for purposes of this post. Would it not be logical to assume that when those who have wealth in preparation of higher taxes, would not stash as much of their wealth as possible?
Is it your assumption that the federal government give itself broad and far reaching powers to go into bank accounts and investment accounts and take what it wishes?
The best way to crush an economy is to have government run the economy.

I never claimed that of the US Census. Do you not know how to read? I did call cecilie1210's figures/claims he/she listed that is not based on US Census data, nor did the bs he listed come from the US Census data.

Taxes are necessary, get used to it.

No raising the wealthy's taxes is not soaking them and it would be a good start in cutting the deficit. In comparison, raising taxes on those with meager earnings is soaking them, but that SHOULD be obvious to anyone with even a half a brain cell. It's also better than raising the deficit which is what your con budz love to do while at the same time pretending they are conservative. If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem?

The rest of your tripe isn't worth a response, but I would suggest you become more educated before trying to come across as some now-it-all - which you ain't.

If you took EVERYTHING the "wealthy" had, it would not pay off half the deficit. The gov't is SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY. And the kids that think they live on Pinoccio's "fun island" are about to be turned into jackasses. It would not be so bad, but they want to force the rest of us to turn into jackasses also. Still waiting for your ideas to make it a "better world", and to show where taxing the wealthy into oblivion built any society...

 

[Fordsflylow]

True again. I've had Shaman on 'ignore' for a while now and don't miss it for a minute.

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Please provide some evidence where "taxing the wealthy" does anything beneficial for the poor. Talk about Charlie Manson followers.... Knocking down people that are doing okay for themselves will not pull the ones that aren't any better off, it will leave less "scraps" for them. The ONLY people that benefit from raising taxes are the politicians. If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them.
You are preaching DESTRUCTION, not construction. It does not work out when you try to "steal" what others have for "the good" of ____________. Our country has been going that way for decades, and it is not working out; it is failing. That way makes "subjects" out of "citizens", and gives the power and the WEALTH to the rulers/tyrants. There are many countries in the world that are "ruled" that way, why do you want to change the one country that is "different" from all the rest, into the same as all the rest?

How does raising taxes a few % on one who has more than enough money to live knock them down exactly?

Snipit from above; "If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them." Makes no sense to me and has not ever worked. When in history has this worked?

Progressive insurance, to use one of many examples in which to choose from, stole from me and did not provide the service? Ever wonder what that corp spends on those never ending and stupid flo ads? Ever wonder how cheap there policies, that they rarely pay out for, would be had they not had that astronomical marketing budget? Think how many stupid people buy into that bs crap service based on that stupid flo bs cause they think it is cute or some such shit.

Regardless what you've been fed by right-wing propaganda this current pyramid scheme is not capitalism. Not even close either!

 

[thereisnospoon]

True again. I've had Shaman on 'ignore' for a while now and don't miss it for a minute.

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Please provide some evidence where "taxing the wealthy" does anything beneficial for the poor. Talk about Charlie Manson followers.... Knocking down people that are doing okay for themselves will not pull the ones that aren't any better off, it will leave less "scraps" for them. The ONLY people that benefit from raising taxes are the politicians. If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them.
You are preaching DESTRUCTION, not construction. It does not work out when you try to "steal" what others have for "the good" of ____________. Our country has been going that way for decades, and it is not working out; it is failing. That way makes "subjects" out of "citizens", and gives the power and the WEALTH to the rulers/tyrants. There are many countries in the world that are "ruled" that way, why do you want to change the one country that is "different" from all the rest, into the same as all the rest?

Raising taxes doesn't do anything except give politicians more money to waste....And it makes certain people feel good knowing those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL rich people( probably own the company they work for) got soaked.
As far productivity with higher taxation? It regresses.
Government REMOVES wealth from the private sector. Once government gets it's hands on our money, it's gone. It never returns to us in any sort of value...This of course excludes tax dollars spent on essential government functions.

 

[logical4u]

I have two objections to "income inequality" as it is in our country today.

One is, its almost impossible to change your own situation. I'm fairly well off and I earned every cent but that's only because I started saving and investing very young. We don't teach our kids how to do that.

Second, because Rs do so much business off shore, that money does very little to help our own country. As we all know, we've been lied to about the so-called "job creators". for the most part, its the small businesses that do the hiring, not the one percent.

The exception to that, such as wal mart, hires a lot of people but the pay is crap.

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

President Obama's tax breaks for individuals, small businesses and the tax breaks the health care bill gives us help the real job creators.

What bothers me about wallyworld is all the mom and pop businesses it put out of business. Now that my friend is wealth redistribution on a grand scale. The livable wage/wealth WAS spread more evenly and much better than it is now. Mega-corps should never be allowed to become even close to what is known as "too big to fail." The MaBell's should be split up again imho, just to grab one example out of mind.

Trickle-down economics is, was, and always will be a serious failure/scam.

What really bothers me about the liberals: they want to tell the rest of us how to "spend" our money (on taxes), but do not set the example. According to you Obamazombies, if the the liberal wealthy would just re-distribute "their" wealth, all your lives would be remarkably better, why don't they? Why don't they show the rest of us how "painless" it is to work hard for what you have and then give it to people that do not or are unwilling to work as hard. I do not mind taking care of the widows and orphans, but the gov't dole is mostly a scam for those that do not want to work.

 

[Fordsflylow]

I have two objections to "income inequality" as it is in our country today.

One is, its almost impossible to change your own situation. I'm fairly well off and I earned every cent but that's only because I started saving and investing very young. We don't teach our kids how to do that.

Second, because Rs do so much business off shore, that money does very little to help our own country. As we all know, we've been lied to about the so-called "job creators". for the most part, its the small businesses that do the hiring, not the one percent.

The exception to that, such as wal mart, hires a lot of people but the pay is crap.

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

President Obama's tax breaks for individuals, small businesses and the tax breaks the health care bill gives us help the real job creators.

What bothers me about wallyworld is all the mom and pop businesses it put out of business. Now that my friend is wealth redistribution on a grand scale. The livable wage/wealth WAS spread more evenly and much better than it is now. Mega-corps should never be allowed to become even close to what is known as "too big to fail." The MaBell's should be split up again imho, just to grab one example out of mind.

Trickle-down economics is, was, and always will be a serious failure/scam.

The mom and pop businesses that went out of business is not the fault of Walmart. it is the fault of the customer who abandoned their local retailers.
Many times we're are subject to the howlings of union members who have picked Walmart as the labor anti-Christ. Meanwhile the worker's spouses shop at every discount brick and mortar outlet they can get to.
Livable/living wage is a myth. It is a term that is used by big labor to further the artificial lifting of pay without regard to economic realities.
I will agree with your angel on large corporations which are involved in many industries. These companies do not actually operate the plants or produce the products. These invisible people just own the paper.
For example....I think the federal government should go back to the old FCC rules that prohibit foreign ownership of radio and tv stations. That should extend to satellite radio, news outlets, and newspapers. Yes that includes Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp.
I also think that auto manufacturers should make autos. Airlines should fly planes, etc...
There should be no bank permitted to use it's assets to invest in markets, real estate other banks, etc. That money is the property of the customers.
I think Day Trading should be outlawed. If you buy stock in a company, you are stuck with it for ( a joke here ) 7 to 10 business days....

When one is forced to buy cheap bs due to decreasing or stagnant wages, one has little choice but to abandon more expensive businesses. Capitalism requires competition, the more the better, not the least the better. You do not have an understanding of economics pal!

 

[thereisnospoon]

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Please provide some evidence where "taxing the wealthy" does anything beneficial for the poor. Talk about Charlie Manson followers.... Knocking down people that are doing okay for themselves will not pull the ones that aren't any better off, it will leave less "scraps" for them. The ONLY people that benefit from raising taxes are the politicians. If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them.
You are preaching DESTRUCTION, not construction. It does not work out when you try to "steal" what others have for "the good" of ____________. Our country has been going that way for decades, and it is not working out; it is failing. That way makes "subjects" out of "citizens", and gives the power and the WEALTH to the rulers/tyrants. There are many countries in the world that are "ruled" that way, why do you want to change the one country that is "different" from all the rest, into the same as all the rest?

How does raising taxes a few % on one who has more than enough money to live knock them down exactly?

Snipit from above; "If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them." Makes no sense to me and has not ever worked. When in history has this worked?

Progressive insurance, to use one of many examples in which to choose from, stole from me and did not provide the service? Ever wonder what that corp spends on those never ending and stupid flo ads? Ever wonder how cheap there policies, that they rarely pay out for, would be had they not had that astronomical marketing budget? Think how many stupid people buy into that bs crap service based on that stupid flo bs cause they think it is cute or some such shit.

Regardless what you've been fed by right-wing propaganda this current pyramid scheme is not capitalism. Not even close either!

"Just a few percent"....Ahh the old liberal incrementalism argument..It all adds up.
"Oh what's your worry. It's only ( fill in the blank)"...
Bullshit. Every additional tax or increase in existing taxes takes another bite out of the private sector and tears at the economy.
Why not just be honest and say what you really want. You want government to control all wealth.

 

[logical4u]

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Please provide some evidence where "taxing the wealthy" does anything beneficial for the poor. Talk about Charlie Manson followers.... Knocking down people that are doing okay for themselves will not pull the ones that aren't any better off, it will leave less "scraps" for them. The ONLY people that benefit from raising taxes are the politicians. If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them.
You are preaching DESTRUCTION, not construction. It does not work out when you try to "steal" what others have for "the good" of ____________. Our country has been going that way for decades, and it is not working out; it is failing. That way makes "subjects" out of "citizens", and gives the power and the WEALTH to the rulers/tyrants. There are many countries in the world that are "ruled" that way, why do you want to change the one country that is "different" from all the rest, into the same as all the rest?

How does raising taxes a few % on one who has more than enough money to live knock them down exactly?

Snipit from above; "If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them." Makes no sense to me and has not ever worked. When in history has this worked?

Progressive insurance, to use one of many examples in which to choose from, stole from me and did not provide the service? Ever wonder what that corp spends on those never ending and stupid flo ads? Ever wonder how cheap there policies, that they rarely pay out for, would be had they not had that astronomical marketing budget? Think how many stupid people buy into that bs crap service based on that stupid flo bs cause they think it is cute or some such shit.

Regardless what you've been fed by right-wing propaganda this current pyramid scheme is not capitalism. Not even close either!

Progressive insurance is owned by a liberal, what did you expect, a fair deal?

Lower taxes = more gov't income during the Kennedy tax breaks, during the Reagan tax breaks and during the Bush tax breaks. Threatening to raise taxes and raising taxes reduces gov't income. Look at the big cities that wanted to tax the "wealthy" where a huge percentage of the "wealthy" left the cities, and the cities fell short of ALL that projected income, and have been left with "occupiers" and mobs in the streets, now they will have a hard time getting anyone with an income to move there.

If people work hard for an income and follow the rules, they contribute to their community and country. When the community and country wants to change the rules (the taxes), the people that are able to go to places where they can live better (or even at a slightly lower standard) will leave, because the gov't has shown irresponsibility for rules. It is a "deal breaker". Just like Progressive implied you would get value for your investing dollars with them, the over-taxed feel ripped off when the rules change. If you keep hurting them thru raising taxes whenever politicians can't discipline themselves, they will show less money, they will spend less money and they will spend their money in other places, none of which helps "our" economy.

Thank you for discussing this.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What bothers me about wallyworld is all the mom and pop businesses it put out of business. Now that my friend is wealth redistribution on a grand scale. The livable wage/wealth WAS spread more evenly and much better than it is now. Mega-corps should never be allowed to become even close to what is known as "too big to fail." The MaBell's should be split up again imho, just to grab one example out of mind.

Trickle-down economics is, was, and always will be a serious failure/scam.

The mom and pop businesses that went out of business is not the fault of Walmart. it is the fault of the customer who abandoned their local retailers.
Many times we're are subject to the howlings of union members who have picked Walmart as the labor anti-Christ. Meanwhile the worker's spouses shop at every discount brick and mortar outlet they can get to.
Livable/living wage is a myth. It is a term that is used by big labor to further the artificial lifting of pay without regard to economic realities.
I will agree with your angel on large corporations which are involved in many industries. These companies do not actually operate the plants or produce the products. These invisible people just own the paper.
For example....I think the federal government should go back to the old FCC rules that prohibit foreign ownership of radio and tv stations. That should extend to satellite radio, news outlets, and newspapers. Yes that includes Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp.
I also think that auto manufacturers should make autos. Airlines should fly planes, etc...
There should be no bank permitted to use it's assets to invest in markets, real estate other banks, etc. That money is the property of the customers.
I think Day Trading should be outlawed. If you buy stock in a company, you are stuck with it for ( a joke here ) 7 to 10 business days....

When one is forced to buy cheap bs due to decreasing or stagnant wages, one has little choice but to abandon more expensive businesses. Capitalism requires competition, the more the better, not the least the better. You do not have an understanding of economics pal!

That's not a pertinent response.
No one is "forced" to buy what you refer to as "cheap"..
Your premise presupposes the notion of the zero sum game.
You imply that the mere existence of Walmart caused wages to automatically drop. That all people living within a one hour's drive of a Walmart shop there because the other retailers were just too expensive.
Ok..You mentioned competition. I assume in the marketplace.
Should not the best business win? If a business offers the products that consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay, is that not competition?
Or is your economic model in agreement with the idea that retailers in a given area agree to "set" their prices so as to not compete?
Sort of like when a bunch of convenience stores in a given area agree to not lower their gas prices or even price match?
This whole Walmart issue is and always has been about one thing. Unions.
The fact that Sam Walton was vehemently opposed to organized labor and fought with every part of his soul to keep unions out of his stores just drives liberals up a wall.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Please provide some evidence where "taxing the wealthy" does anything beneficial for the poor. Talk about Charlie Manson followers.... Knocking down people that are doing okay for themselves will not pull the ones that aren't any better off, it will leave less "scraps" for them. The ONLY people that benefit from raising taxes are the politicians. If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them.
You are preaching DESTRUCTION, not construction. It does not work out when you try to "steal" what others have for "the good" of ____________. Our country has been going that way for decades, and it is not working out; it is failing. That way makes "subjects" out of "citizens", and gives the power and the WEALTH to the rulers/tyrants. There are many countries in the world that are "ruled" that way, why do you want to change the one country that is "different" from all the rest, into the same as all the rest?

How does raising taxes a few % on one who has more than enough money to live knock them down exactly?

Snipit from above; "If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them." Makes no sense to me and has not ever worked. When in history has this worked?

Progressive insurance, to use one of many examples in which to choose from, stole from me and did not provide the service? Ever wonder what that corp spends on those never ending and stupid flo ads? Ever wonder how cheap there policies, that they rarely pay out for, would be had they not had that astronomical marketing budget? Think how many stupid people buy into that bs crap service based on that stupid flo bs cause they think it is cute or some such shit.

Regardless what you've been fed by right-wing propaganda this current pyramid scheme is not capitalism. Not even close either!

"Just a few percent"....Ahh the old liberal incrementalism argument..It all adds up.
"Oh what's your worry. It's only ( fill in the blank)"...
Bullshit. Every additional tax or increase in existing taxes takes another bite out of the private sector and tears at the economy.
Why not just be honest and say what you really want. You want government to control all wealth.

I'll leave it up to you and your ditto head budz to state what you think I THINK per as usual. It sure does add up, look at the deficit! 2 wars, trillion $ pharma gimmee, tax breaks (while at war, first time in history), etc. all on the nations credit card under a con controlled presidency and congress. TRY and weasle out of that FACT jack.

You really need to have that voluntary amnesia looked at by a professional. lol

 

[Fordsflylow]

The mom and pop businesses that went out of business is not the fault of Walmart. it is the fault of the customer who abandoned their local retailers.
Many times we're are subject to the howlings of union members who have picked Walmart as the labor anti-Christ. Meanwhile the worker's spouses shop at every discount brick and mortar outlet they can get to.
Livable/living wage is a myth. It is a term that is used by big labor to further the artificial lifting of pay without regard to economic realities.
I will agree with your angel on large corporations which are involved in many industries. These companies do not actually operate the plants or produce the products. These invisible people just own the paper.
For example....I think the federal government should go back to the old FCC rules that prohibit foreign ownership of radio and tv stations. That should extend to satellite radio, news outlets, and newspapers. Yes that includes Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp.
I also think that auto manufacturers should make autos. Airlines should fly planes, etc...
There should be no bank permitted to use it's assets to invest in markets, real estate other banks, etc. That money is the property of the customers.
I think Day Trading should be outlawed. If you buy stock in a company, you are stuck with it for ( a joke here ) 7 to 10 business days....

When one is forced to buy cheap bs due to decreasing or stagnant wages, one has little choice but to abandon more expensive businesses. Capitalism requires competition, the more the better, not the least the better. You do not have an understanding of economics pal!

That's not a pertinent response.
No one is "forced" to buy what you refer to as "cheap"..
Your premise presupposes the notion of the zero sum game.
You imply that the mere existence of Walmart caused wages to automatically drop. That all people living within a one hour's drive of a Walmart shop there because the other retailers were just too expensive.
Ok..You mentioned competition. I assume in the marketplace.
Should not the best business win? If a business offers the products that consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay, is that not competition?
Or is your economic model in agreement with the idea that retailers in a given area agree to "set" their prices so as to not compete?
Sort of like when a bunch of convenience stores in a given area agree to not lower their gas prices or even price match?
This whole Walmart issue is and always has been about one thing. Unions.
The fact that Sam Walton was vehemently opposed to organized labor and fought with every part of his soul to keep unions out of his stores just drives liberals up a wall.

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

 

[logical4u]

When one is forced to buy cheap bs due to decreasing or stagnant wages, one has little choice but to abandon more expensive businesses. Capitalism requires competition, the more the better, not the least the better. You do not have an understanding of economics pal!

That's not a pertinent response.
No one is "forced" to buy what you refer to as "cheap"..
Your premise presupposes the notion of the zero sum game.
You imply that the mere existence of Walmart caused wages to automatically drop. That all people living within a one hour's drive of a Walmart shop there because the other retailers were just too expensive.
Ok..You mentioned competition. I assume in the marketplace.
Should not the best business win? If a business offers the products that consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay, is that not competition?
Or is your economic model in agreement with the idea that retailers in a given area agree to "set" their prices so as to not compete?
Sort of like when a bunch of convenience stores in a given area agree to not lower their gas prices or even price match?
This whole Walmart issue is and always has been about one thing. Unions.
The fact that Sam Walton was vehemently opposed to organized labor and fought with every part of his soul to keep unions out of his stores just drives liberals up a wall.

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

If you are implying you are the "master", please "master" tell me where re-distribution has worked. Every incident I have read about, watched on the news, the mobs got to party for about a month, and then it turns out, their lives are worse than they were before (the people that were the anchors of society, the producers were dead, or forced to flee). The production was lower, the standard of living was lower, the education was lower, the expectations were lowered (if they weren't, you got to see the grave). So please, please give us an honest example of where redistribution of wealth works.

Tell us "your" plan to keep the producers producing, and the liberty in place, please, master.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When one is forced to buy cheap bs due to decreasing or stagnant wages, one has little choice but to abandon more expensive businesses. Capitalism requires competition, the more the better, not the least the better. You do not have an understanding of economics pal!

That's not a pertinent response.
No one is "forced" to buy what you refer to as "cheap"..
Your premise presupposes the notion of the zero sum game.
You imply that the mere existence of Walmart caused wages to automatically drop. That all people living within a one hour's drive of a Walmart shop there because the other retailers were just too expensive.
Ok..You mentioned competition. I assume in the marketplace.
Should not the best business win? If a business offers the products that consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay, is that not competition?
Or is your economic model in agreement with the idea that retailers in a given area agree to "set" their prices so as to not compete?
Sort of like when a bunch of convenience stores in a given area agree to not lower their gas prices or even price match?
This whole Walmart issue is and always has been about one thing. Unions.
The fact that Sam Walton was vehemently opposed to organized labor and fought with every part of his soul to keep unions out of his stores just drives liberals up a wall.

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

Non responsive. Try again.
You stated people are "forced to buy cheap"...That is nonsense.
No one is forced to buy anything.
If one has less, of course they have less to spend.
That is not a new concept.
So is it your premise that before big box stores people of little means were "forced" to buy from the ( your words) more expensive mom and pop stores?
Ya can't have it both ways.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How does raising taxes a few % on one who has more than enough money to live knock them down exactly?

Snipit from above; "If you want more income for the gov't, lower taxes, and people will be more willing to pay them." Makes no sense to me and has not ever worked. When in history has this worked?

Progressive insurance, to use one of many examples in which to choose from, stole from me and did not provide the service? Ever wonder what that corp spends on those never ending and stupid flo ads? Ever wonder how cheap there policies, that they rarely pay out for, would be had they not had that astronomical marketing budget? Think how many stupid people buy into that bs crap service based on that stupid flo bs cause they think it is cute or some such shit.

Regardless what you've been fed by right-wing propaganda this current pyramid scheme is not capitalism. Not even close either!

"Just a few percent"....Ahh the old liberal incrementalism argument..It all adds up.
"Oh what's your worry. It's only ( fill in the blank)"...
Bullshit. Every additional tax or increase in existing taxes takes another bite out of the private sector and tears at the economy.
Why not just be honest and say what you really want. You want government to control all wealth.

I'll leave it up to you and your ditto head budz to state what you think I THINK per as usual. It sure does add up, look at the deficit! 2 wars, trillion $ pharma gimmee, tax breaks (while at war, first time in history), etc. all on the nations credit card under a con controlled presidency and congress. TRY and weasle out of that FACT jack.

You really need to have that voluntary amnesia looked at by a professional. lol

Don't go thinking you can pull that shit here.
Government has a spending problem. Not a revenue problem.
Notice I stated "government"....No mention of party.
And please don't try feeding us that righteous indignation over government spending.
Please. You libs could not give a shit about spending. In fact, you support deficit spending.
You people view taxation as a means to punish.

 

[Fordsflylow]

That's not a pertinent response.
No one is "forced" to buy what you refer to as "cheap"..
Your premise presupposes the notion of the zero sum game.
You imply that the mere existence of Walmart caused wages to automatically drop. That all people living within a one hour's drive of a Walmart shop there because the other retailers were just too expensive.
Ok..You mentioned competition. I assume in the marketplace.
Should not the best business win? If a business offers the products that consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay, is that not competition?
Or is your economic model in agreement with the idea that retailers in a given area agree to "set" their prices so as to not compete?
Sort of like when a bunch of convenience stores in a given area agree to not lower their gas prices or even price match?
This whole Walmart issue is and always has been about one thing. Unions.
The fact that Sam Walton was vehemently opposed to organized labor and fought with every part of his soul to keep unions out of his stores just drives liberals up a wall.

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

Non responsive. Try again.
You stated people are "forced to buy cheap"...That is nonsense.
No one is forced to buy anything.
If one has less, of course they have less to spend.
That is not a new concept.
So is it your premise that before big box stores people of little means were "forced" to buy from the ( your words) more expensive mom and pop stores?
Ya can't have it both ways.

Apparently I have to spell this out over and over. This shit you posted is all irrelevant to the FACT that income INEQUALITY exists and is a proven, and is far greater than ever in our history, except "maybe" prior to the great depression. When the upper 10%'s wealth increases AND HAS increased by 100's of %, while at the same time blue collar and lower classes have stayed stagnant or gone down, makes for a pyramid scheme NOT capitalism. Obvious as the day is long to anyone who understands basic economics and is not a crook trying to sway the gullible to spew the bs they've been fed.

The upper 1, 2, 10% know that they do not have the numbers to support their crookedness. Knowing this they have to manipulate the masses into believing the bs they are shoveling. Those who are deaf, dumb, blind, etc. will fall for this garbage and gladly swallow it hook line and sinker. Much like a majician fools his followers, watch one hand while ignoring the other, or getting one poor/lower class to blame another segment of poor/lower class for the nations woes while they continue to reap the self-centered greed driven rewards be damned anyone else.

Furthermore, trickle-down economics has been a PROVEN failure and can be directly tied to bubble after bubble over the past several decades. If not, how not? This is not rocket science, it is in our face bs.

Tax breaks for the "SO-CALLED JOB CREATORS" (which if it weren't so sad it would be laughable) is also a grand failure, has had 10 years to work, and PROVEN to have not worked for the lower 90% of the population. The elite have still increased their wealth in RECORD amounts while whining that they have it rough and shouldn't have to pay any or more taxes WHILE they buy the next round of politician's to run the gov they bought long ago.

Shouldn't be that tough to understand if one only open one's mind to learning - never to ever stop learning. Try it, you might just like it!

 

[Fordsflylow]

"Just a few percent"....Ahh the old liberal incrementalism argument..It all adds up.
"Oh what's your worry. It's only ( fill in the blank)"...
Bullshit. Every additional tax or increase in existing taxes takes another bite out of the private sector and tears at the economy.
Why not just be honest and say what you really want. You want government to control all wealth.

I'll leave it up to you and your ditto head budz to state what you think I THINK per as usual. It sure does add up, look at the deficit! 2 wars, trillion $ pharma gimmee, tax breaks (while at war, first time in history), etc. all on the nations credit card under a con controlled presidency and congress. TRY and weasle out of that FACT jack.

You really need to have that voluntary amnesia looked at by a professional. lol

Don't go thinking you can pull that shit here.
Government has a spending problem. Not a revenue problem.
Notice I stated "government"....No mention of party.
And please don't try feeding us that righteous indignation over government spending.
Please. You libs could not give a shit about spending. In fact, you support deficit spending.
You people view taxation as a means to punish.

Of course there is a revenue problem when there are 10's of million's of folks unemployed and not paying taxes. The corporations who have caused this sham of an economy to tank ought to choke up some of that $2.5 TRILLION they scammed from retirements, etc. and are sitting on - in off-shore accounts - while paying nothing in taxes. Not to mention, the welfare for the rich (i.e. subsidies, gov gimmees, etc.) they get from their bought and paid for govt.

 

[Fordsflylow]

That's not a pertinent response.
No one is "forced" to buy what you refer to as "cheap"..
Your premise presupposes the notion of the zero sum game.
You imply that the mere existence of Walmart caused wages to automatically drop. That all people living within a one hour's drive of a Walmart shop there because the other retailers were just too expensive.
Ok..You mentioned competition. I assume in the marketplace.
Should not the best business win? If a business offers the products that consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay, is that not competition?
Or is your economic model in agreement with the idea that retailers in a given area agree to "set" their prices so as to not compete?
Sort of like when a bunch of convenience stores in a given area agree to not lower their gas prices or even price match?
This whole Walmart issue is and always has been about one thing. Unions.
The fact that Sam Walton was vehemently opposed to organized labor and fought with every part of his soul to keep unions out of his stores just drives liberals up a wall.

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

If you are implying you are the "master", please "master" tell me where re-distribution has worked. Every incident I have read about, watched on the news, the mobs got to party for about a month, and then it turns out, their lives are worse than they were before (the people that were the anchors of society, the producers were dead, or forced to flee). The production was lower, the standard of living was lower, the education was lower, the expectations were lowered (if they weren't, you got to see the grave). So please, please give us an honest example of where redistribution of wealth works.

Tell us "your" plan to keep the producers producing, and the liberty in place, please, master.

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

If you are implying you are the "master", please "master" tell me where re-distribution has worked. Every incident I have read about, watched on the news, the mobs got to party for about a month, and then it turns out, their lives are worse than they were before (the people that were the anchors of society, the producers were dead, or forced to flee). The production was lower, the standard of living was lower, the education was lower, the expectations were lowered (if they weren't, you got to see the grave). So please, please give us an honest example of where redistribution of wealth works.

Tell us "your" plan to keep the producers producing, and the liberty in place, please, master.

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

Yeah, it works so great you can't find where I "hid" the US Census Bureau's website, and never heard of the Annual Poverty Report.

Don't flatter yourself, fucktard. You can yell, "NEXT!" when you've finished with ONE debate in any manner other than, "You don't have a link, so you've lied, and I WIN!" Until then, all you're calling for is the next person to whip your ass.