"Income Inequality": So What?

[Fordsflylow]

Ahh yes another independent study that supports the title of this thread.

Half Of American Households Hold 1 Percent Of Wealth

 

[Iridescence]

"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)

The American pie has obviously been forked in the face for sometime, now. What has happened? It may have far more to do with the slow but incredibly dubious rot of American minds by comforts, protection, and ease. I love our country and value our people but too many adults are still in proverbial diapers wearing bibs and needing nannies. The pay scales are vastly sloped but if we cannot learn to appreciate and value the depth of mud we may never realise the gift of a vineyard and the work of husbandry.

Stop self destructive life choices?! Such carries the potential for individualistic fundamental empowerment that may very well need to be *just* destructive enough to eradicate spiritual stagnancy which can and likely would lead to further life development and progressive, beneficial change.

Education should be free.... and should be both public and private, however it should *not* IMO be mandatory, period.

Refer to the US Constitution? Yes, insanity can be made out of any thing. Let's be collectively aware of that.

 

[Iridescence]

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

No, because wealth is not "distributed".

Should "wealth" be distributed? Earned? Gifted? Sought? Embellished? Hyped? Perhaps it merely needs redefined.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

No, because wealth is not "distributed".

Should "wealth" be distributed? Earned? Gifted? Sought? Embellished? Hyped? Perhaps it merely needs redefined.

No, thank you. The English language works just fine as it is. One might even say that the biggest obstacle English has to its purpose of communication is the need some people feel to constantly redefine it until it's just meaningless sounds.

No, wealth should not be distributed. Human beings do not flourish as slaves, given whatever they have by the decisions of a benevolent master who distributes to them according to his own standards.

Wealth is, and should be, acquired according to the life choices of the individuals involved. Whether it is earned, gifted, or won through gambling should be naught to you unless you are one of the individuals involved in that process.

 

[jasonnfree]

There is a lot of truth in what you say, and usually very intelligent people beget very intelligent people. However once a person aquires great wealth more opportunities open up to preserve and grow that wealth. Most of us don't have enough disposable income left after basic needs are served to take advantages of wealth preservation that the very wealthy and corporations have, such as offshore accounts and buying politicians through lobbyists. The very wealthy can fund think tanks to spread their views which even influence voters. They can even form foundations that can save income from the taxman.

Is this what America is about? The law of the jungle but rather than survival of the fittest it's survival of the very intelligent and very crafty and very wealthy? For example, there were two bankruptcy laws passed in the last decade that made bankruptcy very hard to declare, even if your financial woes were due to major health problems. This favors creditors of course. At the same time, these big institutions can go bankrupt themselves but just get taxpayer bailouts.

Being 68 years old I believe the average person works more hours and is more productive than 45 to 50 years ago. Now we have both man and wife working to make ends meet if they are lucky to have a job now that so many jobs and opportunities moved offshore. Another example of the very wealthy and corporations making the system work for them. When I was a small businessman, I couldn't avoid minimum wage laws and avoid workers rights and environmental laws like major corporations are allowed to do when they move to low wage countries. I didn't have the excess income or economy of scale. Just one example, and my opinion, but still trying to figure it all out so I'll check out the responses to whats my opinion. thanks

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

In fact, that is correct. It has nothing to do with genetics, but with the fact that if parents are successful, they send their kids to better schools, who then get higher education (note, I said higher, not better) which, of course, opens more doors for them. Also, they learn at an early age what it means to be successful, and utilize that attitude.

I can take the richest guy in your state, take everything away from him, or her, and do the same with you.

The rich person will succeed while you'll probably rise to your current mediocre level.

Before you ask, I can tell you exist at a mediocre level because of your philosophy on life. You expect government to be an equalizing force, while exceptional people understand that government is a tool, to be limited and used sparingly.

 

[Fordsflylow]

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.

"I have no idea where to find US Census Bureau data without a 'linky', and I have no idea what the US Census Bureau does, but I just KNOW that the facts I was given were false without even bothering to check!"

It's a good thing you don't think his "tripe" is worth a response, because you sure the fuck didn't give one.

Hey, Mr. Show Me Some Proof, where's the substantiation for YOUR assertions in this pile of swill? "Raising the wealthy's taxes would be a good start on reducing the deficit"? Prove it. "If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem"? Prove it.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your whole schtick is "My words should be taken at face value, but anything I hear that I don't like should be called a lie, and any source cited should be denied as existing. And when people ignore me in disgust at my ignorance, I declare victory!" I'm not really suprised, mind you, that the only achievement you've ever had is to drive people away with your obtuse ignorance.

If you really want I can give you a linky to support my claim that lowering taxes have not created jobs, but is it really necessary? It's been proven over the past 10 years. All one really has to do is look at the past 10 years where the wealthy's taxes were lowered at the beginning of bush's terms ($6.2 trillion added to the deficit) and walla very few if any livable wage jobs created and an overall net loss over his tenure. Meanwhile, the wealthy have enjoyed RECORD bonuses, RECORD increases in wealth AT THE VERY SAME TIME the lower classes have increasingly struggled, the credit card charges bushy ran up come due and the deficit increases. It's not calculous, algebra, trig, etc., it's simple math and the ability to apply cause and effect/affect. I can supply a non-partisan linky if you'd like, but do you really want to read the dier bs? It's in your face if one only looks with an open mind AND exactly as I just spelled out for you.

As for the debt per pres , here ya go, and there are plenty in which to choose from; File:Federal Debt 1901-2010.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The following is a snipit from this article, which shows Reagan (1985) and the con's running the house of reps (nations purse) then Bush/shrub (2004) and the con's running both the house and senate; "The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).[36]" Don't stop there, it's very interesting reading to those of us who like FACTS.

While I'm at it, and seeing as you have no linky for your CLAIM about the poor, here's the linky to what you claimed supports your claim(s) and is knee deep bs. Poverty - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Now you care to show me where that jives with that list of bs you posted?

What, now that I've shown you're not all you think you are you have no reply?

That's what i thought! Thanks again for showing everyone how off-base and lacking of facts your bs rants have been!

 

[logical4u]

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”



John Adams also had an opinion. “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”


And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,


“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”


What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info


President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”


Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”


Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”


I guess Our founding fathers and previous presidents must have been class warfare mongers, huh?

That spells it out nicely. Thanks for bringing some real intelligence to the convo, now if the ditto heads would just learn to read or better yet think.

Is that because the "anti-trust" laws were replaced with " too big to fail" under the democrats? We are just tired of your hypocrisy. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and have no evidence to show you actually support what you say. As soon as one of yours is caught in a corruption scandal, you want to change the morals/rules/goal posts/etc. Your democrats and the people they represent welcome corruption on a grand scale. When those same corrupt people move from public office to corporations where they continue their corrupt ways, you want to cry corporations are corrupt. You put them there, you welcomed the corruption. It was all okay until it became personal to you. Now, you have the chance to vote a fraud out of office. I don't see it happening. The people that embrace corruption will vote to keep the fraud in the white house. Those people are similar to Charles Manson's followers, that worship him as their savior (because he told them so), just like the people that believe Barry Sorento is legitimate as anything.

 

[squeeze berry]

"I have no idea where to find US Census Bureau data without a 'linky', and I have no idea what the US Census Bureau does, but I just KNOW that the facts I was given were false without even bothering to check!"

It's a good thing you don't think his "tripe" is worth a response, because you sure the fuck didn't give one.

Hey, Mr. Show Me Some Proof, where's the substantiation for YOUR assertions in this pile of swill? "Raising the wealthy's taxes would be a good start on reducing the deficit"? Prove it. "If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem"? Prove it.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your whole schtick is "My words should be taken at face value, but anything I hear that I don't like should be called a lie, and any source cited should be denied as existing. And when people ignore me in disgust at my ignorance, I declare victory!" I'm not really suprised, mind you, that the only achievement you've ever had is to drive people away with your obtuse ignorance.

If you really want I can give you a linky to support my claim that lowering taxes have not created jobs, but is it really necessary? It's been proven over the past 10 years. All one really has to do is look at the past 10 years where the wealthy's taxes were lowered at the beginning of bush's terms ($6.2 trillion added to the deficit) and walla very few if any livable wage jobs created and an overall net loss over his tenure. Meanwhile, the wealthy have enjoyed RECORD bonuses, RECORD increases in wealth AT THE VERY SAME TIME the lower classes have increasingly struggled, the credit card charges bushy ran up come due and the deficit increases. It's not calculous, algebra, trig, etc., it's simple math and the ability to apply cause and effect/affect. I can supply a non-partisan linky if you'd like, but do you really want to read the dier bs? It's in your face if one only looks with an open mind AND exactly as I just spelled out for you.

As for the debt per pres , here ya go, and there are plenty in which to choose from; File:Federal Debt 1901-2010.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The following is a snipit from this article, which shows Reagan (1985) and the con's running the house of reps (nations purse) then Bush/shrub (2004) and the con's running both the house and senate; "The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).[36]" Don't stop there, it's very interesting reading to those of us who like FACTS.

While I'm at it, and seeing as you have no linky for your CLAIM about the poor, here's the linky to what you claimed supports your claim(s) and is knee deep bs. Poverty - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Now you care to show me where that jives with that list of bs you posted?

What, now that I've shown you're not all you think you are you have no reply?

That's what i thought! Thanks again for showing everyone how off-base and lacking of facts your bs rants have been!

you are a legend in your own mind

 

[logical4u]

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!

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

The gov't has the responsibility of providing equity under the law. The gov't has the responsibility of securing our borders and protecting American interests.

If the gov't was serious about wealth distribution, it could give a certain amount of money to each citizen at a specified age (it couldn't be under 18 or the deadbeat parents would steal it for themselves), say 18, 25, or 30. Each citizen would then be "equal", and able to spend/invest that money as they chose. You would find most people would "waste" their money on things that did not matter and the amount would not make a difference. Since that is not happening and the gov't is giving an "allowance" for being a deadbeat, we must assume that it is not about "wealth distribution". That leaves the alternative of a gov't slowly enslaving its population with handouts and favors. It is truly amazing how many people that reject Christianity as a religion that want to tell you what to do is so willing to jump thru every hoop, sit up and beg, roll over, and sign their freedom away for what they have been told is a "free ride".

 

[Care4all]

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”



John Adams also had an opinion. “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”


And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,


“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”


What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info


President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”


Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”


Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”


I guess Our founding fathers and previous presidents must have been class warfare mongers, huh?

That spells it out nicely. Thanks for bringing some real intelligence to the convo, now if the ditto heads would just learn to read or better yet think.

Is that because the "anti-trust" laws were replaced with " too big to fail" under the democrats? We are just tired of your hypocrisy. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and have no evidence to show you actually support what you say. As soon as one of yours is caught in a corruption scandal, you want to change the morals/rules/goal posts/etc. Your democrats and the people they represent welcome corruption on a grand scale. When those same corrupt people move from public office to corporations where they continue their corrupt ways, you want to cry corporations are corrupt. You put them there, you welcomed the corruption. It was all okay until it became personal to you. Now, you have the chance to vote a fraud out of office. I don't see it happening. The people that embrace corruption will vote to keep the fraud in the white house. Those people are similar to Charles Manson's followers, that worship him as their savior (because he told them so), just like the people that believe Barry Sorento is legitimate as anything.

let me refresh your memory a bit on how clean as a whistle the Republicans in congress are....

Poison Pill - Barbara T. Dreyfuss

and I am not saying there are not corrupt Democrats as well, but for you to even think that your poopee on your side of the aisle doesn't stink, is warped...beyond reason imho. Read the link, pretty please...it should sicken you!

 

[logical4u]

No, because wealth is not "distributed".

You must have either been asleep for the past 10+ years where the rich got filthier rich and the middle and lower classes got poorer. You were either asleep, on some kind of mind altering drug, OR need to be on some mind altering drug but then one needs a mind to start with.

This is probably the result of liberals teaching in the public school system.... ('cause the weatlthier either contribute to their children's education or send them to private schools). Just sayin' ....

 

[logical4u]

That spells it out nicely. Thanks for bringing some real intelligence to the convo, now if the ditto heads would just learn to read or better yet think.

Is that because the "anti-trust" laws were replaced with " too big to fail" under the democrats? We are just tired of your hypocrisy. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and have no evidence to show you actually support what you say. As soon as one of yours is caught in a corruption scandal, you want to change the morals/rules/goal posts/etc. Your democrats and the people they represent welcome corruption on a grand scale. When those same corrupt people move from public office to corporations where they continue their corrupt ways, you want to cry corporations are corrupt. You put them there, you welcomed the corruption. It was all okay until it became personal to you. Now, you have the chance to vote a fraud out of office. I don't see it happening. The people that embrace corruption will vote to keep the fraud in the white house. Those people are similar to Charles Manson's followers, that worship him as their savior (because he told them so), just like the people that believe Barry Sorento is legitimate as anything.

let me refresh your memory a bit on how clean as a whistle the Republicans in congress are....

Poison Pill - Barbara T. Dreyfuss

and I am not saying there are not corrupt Democrats as well, but for you to even think that your poopee on your side of the aisle doesn't stink, is warped...beyond reason imho. Read the link, pretty please...it should sicken you!

Thank you so much for reminding us how the democrats work: OVERLOOK THE CORRUPTION TO POINT OUT OTHERS FAULTS, WHILE NEVER ADDRESSING THE MESS IN YOUR OWN HOUSE. Please, please refresh my memory where I claimed republicans had no corruption and did not stink.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"I have no idea where to find US Census Bureau data without a 'linky', and I have no idea what the US Census Bureau does, but I just KNOW that the facts I was given were false without even bothering to check!"

It's a good thing you don't think his "tripe" is worth a response, because you sure the fuck didn't give one.

Hey, Mr. Show Me Some Proof, where's the substantiation for YOUR assertions in this pile of swill? "Raising the wealthy's taxes would be a good start on reducing the deficit"? Prove it. "If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem"? Prove it.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your whole schtick is "My words should be taken at face value, but anything I hear that I don't like should be called a lie, and any source cited should be denied as existing. And when people ignore me in disgust at my ignorance, I declare victory!" I'm not really suprised, mind you, that the only achievement you've ever had is to drive people away with your obtuse ignorance.

If you really want I can give you a linky to support my claim that lowering taxes have not created jobs, but is it really necessary? It's been proven over the past 10 years. All one really has to do is look at the past 10 years where the wealthy's taxes were lowered at the beginning of bush's terms ($6.2 trillion added to the deficit) and walla very few if any livable wage jobs created and an overall net loss over his tenure. Meanwhile, the wealthy have enjoyed RECORD bonuses, RECORD increases in wealth AT THE VERY SAME TIME the lower classes have increasingly struggled, the credit card charges bushy ran up come due and the deficit increases. It's not calculous, algebra, trig, etc., it's simple math and the ability to apply cause and effect/affect. I can supply a non-partisan linky if you'd like, but do you really want to read the dier bs? It's in your face if one only looks with an open mind AND exactly as I just spelled out for you.

As for the debt per pres , here ya go, and there are plenty in which to choose from; File:Federal Debt 1901-2010.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The following is a snipit from this article, which shows Reagan (1985) and the con's running the house of reps (nations purse) then Bush/shrub (2004) and the con's running both the house and senate; "The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).[36]" Don't stop there, it's very interesting reading to those of us who like FACTS.

While I'm at it, and seeing as you have no linky for your CLAIM about the poor, here's the linky to what you claimed supports your claim(s) and is knee deep bs. Poverty - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Now you care to show me where that jives with that list of bs you posted?

What, now that I've shown you're not all you think you are you have no reply?

That's what i thought! Thanks again for showing everyone how off-base and lacking of facts your bs rants have been!

You are dismissed as a high tax big government liberal who is consumed by your greed.

 

[GodSaveAmerica]

Unfortunately, most people in this country see it as a problem, and it's one of the reasons for Obama's success. It's also largely responsible for the upsurge in violence this country is experiencing. The rich keep getting richer, coveting their wealth and power, and building a police state to protect it. Meanwhile, the natives are getting restless for a bigger share of the pie, and sometimes act out in violent ways. It's an issue that needs to be addressed before it starts getting worse. Obama's solution is more wealth transfer, a band aid response, the real solution is eliminating the burdens of taxes and regulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Unfortunately, most people in this country see it as a problem, and it's one of the reasons for Obama's success. It's also largely responsible for the upsurge in violence this country is experiencing. The rich keep getting richer, coveting their wealth and power, and building a police state to protect it. Meanwhile, the natives are getting restless for a bigger share of the pie, and sometimes act out in violent ways. It's an issue that needs to be addressed before it starts getting worse. Obama's solution is more wealth transfer, a band aid response, the real solution is eliminating the burdens of taxes and regulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. Right now the pols are pitting their power expressed by big government against the power held by big business. They do this by using government to groom a base of those unwilling to do for themselves even the most basic functions for survival. The pols then encourage the envy and greed of that base and foment violence, which in turn is used to point out that only government can protect us all from the very violence they have encouraged. The pols also freely use the power of government to regulate and tax businesses in such a way that the businesses are driven to seek alternative ways of making a profit. This gives the pols even more ammunition to drive the frenzy of the "have-nots" to punish the "haves".

 

[Fordsflylow]

Unfortunately, most people in this country see it as a problem, and it's one of the reasons for Obama's success. It's also largely responsible for the upsurge in violence this country is experiencing. The rich keep getting richer, coveting their wealth and power, and building a police state to protect it. Meanwhile, the natives are getting restless for a bigger share of the pie, and sometimes act out in violent ways. It's an issue that needs to be addressed before it starts getting worse. Obama's solution is more wealth transfer, a band aid response, the real solution is eliminating the burdens of taxes and regulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. Right now the pols are pitting their power expressed by big government against the power held by big business. They do this by using government to groom a base of those unwilling to do for themselves even the most basic functions for survival. The pols then encourage the envy and greed of that base and foment violence, which in turn is used to point out that only government can protect us all from the very violence they have encouraged. The pols also freely use the power of government to regulate and tax businesses in such a way that the businesses are driven to seek alternative ways of making a profit. This gives the pols even more ammunition to drive the frenzy of the "have-nots" to punish the "haves".

So, exactly how did too much regulation cause the financial industry to bring us all to the edge of financial/economical destruction? This I have to read!

7/25/12 Still waiting!

 

[Fordsflylow]

Something to think about

If aliens came and poisoned half our rivers

 

[Fordsflylow]

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!

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

 

[Fordsflylow]

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

No, because wealth is not "distributed".

This statement proves without a doubt that you have no clue wtf you are writing about, and you are clueless as to how this pyramid scheme that has been labeled as capitalism is a grand scam. You should go back to school and study history of the world, not just this country.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Unfortunately, most people in this country see it as a problem, and it's one of the reasons for Obama's success. It's also largely responsible for the upsurge in violence this country is experiencing. The rich keep getting richer, coveting their wealth and power, and building a police state to protect it. Meanwhile, the natives are getting restless for a bigger share of the pie, and sometimes act out in violent ways. It's an issue that needs to be addressed before it starts getting worse. Obama's solution is more wealth transfer, a band aid response, the real solution is eliminating the burdens of taxes and regulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit.

Taxes are a necessary evil if one wants a country in which to practice "true" capitalism. Regardless, even if we had true capitalism, the economic structure is unsustainable long-term. We cannot be at war, so to speak/write, with our home. Where the more efficient the destruction of our home equals greater prosperity for a relative few of the many. Makes no sense, but then I see many of you blind con followers here can't add 1+1 so.....

As for reg's, do you like clean air? Clean water? Consumer protection? Etc,.........? Do you honestly think the private sector is going to do the right thing without govt reg's? We can look back at history and see de-reg's have not even come close to working, nor will it ever work. Private industry does not do what is right for the workers OR the consumers.