"Income Inequality": So What?

[Friends]

If you think Sweden's system is perfect, by all means pack your things and move there.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Fallacy: Red Herring

--------

When someone says that socialism has always failed I point out how well social democracy works in Scandinavia. When that someone tells me to move to Scandinavia I point out that he is trying to change the subject. The point is that what those on the right claim does not work works well in Scandinavia.

 

[Friends]

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)

First, I think the degree of economic inequality in the United States is a problem because I perceive of little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income...

Third, the following passages in the United States Constitution authorize what I recommend in the previous paragraph:

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

Amendment 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

And do not twist and bend the US Constitution to suit your needs.
Taxation is not intended for liberals to use as a means to get even or to punish.
If you agree with Art 1 Sec 8 you must agree with ALL of it's parts. Not just the ones you believe support your position.

You asked me where the Constitution give the government the right and power to reduce economic inequality. I showed you.

Now as far as twisting and bending the Constitution to suit my purposes, that is what everyone does who appeals to the Constitution on behalf of an unpopular political agenda.

The Constitution is nothing more than a loose guidebook on how to operate a democratic government. I would rather appeal to majority opinion. The majority thinks the rich should pay higher taxes. I agree.

Google

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you think Sweden's system is perfect, by all means pack your things and move there.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Fallacy: Red Herring

--------

When someone says that socialism has always failed I point out how well social democracy works in Scandinavia. When that someone tells me to move to Scandinavia I point out that he is trying to change the subject. The point is that what those on the right claim does not work works well in Scandinavia.

First of all, Sweden has what 6 million people? Next, Sweden is a virtual homogeneous society which over the years has become content and obedient. Swedes are generally hard working and proud. The typical Swede would NEVER sit idly by and feel entitled to the largess of others.
Second and most importantly. You imply that life in Sweden is better due to socialism. Ok, that gives you a choice. You can stay in the US and endure the system as it is or you can go where you think life would be better for you. That is according to you, Sweden.
That is the path you have chosen by entering your idea of socialism being the perfect lifestyle under which to live.
The final analysis is this....No matter how much you whine, wish or dream, the US will NOT become the socialist utopia you desire. To find this, you will have to emigrate.
If this to you is changing the subject, so be it. Reality has been explained to you. Deal with it..Or not..

 

[thereisnospoon]

First, I think the degree of economic inequality in the United States is a problem because I perceive of little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income...

Third, the following passages in the United States Constitution authorize what I recommend in the previous paragraph:

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

Amendment 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

And do not twist and bend the US Constitution to suit your needs.
Taxation is not intended for liberals to use as a means to get even or to punish.
If you agree with Art 1 Sec 8 you must agree with ALL of it's parts. Not just the ones you believe support your position.

You asked me where the Constitution give the government the right and power to reduce economic inequality. I showed you.

Now as far as twisting and bending the Constitution to suit my purposes, that is what everyone does who appeals to the Constitution on behalf of an unpopular political agenda.

The Constitution is nothing more than a loose guidebook on how to operate a democratic government. I would rather appeal to majority opinion. The majority thinks the rich should pay higher taxes. I agree.

Google

A "loose guidebook"? Sir, you have problems.
Look, here's the bottom line on a socialist United States..IT AIN'T HAPPENING!

 

[hazlnut]

"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)

Rap your head around this one smart guy.

What happens at a poker game when one player controls all of the chips and the other players have borrowed all they can to stay in the game--what happens after they play the last hand and lose... Game over.

October 1929.

 

[The Professor]

It's a non issue. Totally. Completely. The gov't might as well try to make everyone equally good at playing the piano. Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.
This is unlike some countries where inequality stems from crony capitalism and family ties.
North Korea probably has the most income equality out there--everyone is miserable and dirt poor.

Damn, I hate to do this.

This guy is in the the hospital recovering from an automobile accident. When the doctor comes into the room, the patient raises his bandaged hands and asks, “When the casts come of, will I be able to play the piano? “ And the doctor replies, “Of course.” The patient then exclaims with delight, “Thank God, I couldn't play the piano before the accident.”

 

[The Professor]

Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.

In your dreams maybe!

You're right. No one is smarter than anyone else and no one works harder than anyone else.

I must have been dreaming.

Or, in the alternative, you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Nightson]

"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 war against the poor. I've never understood this...this tendency of many, many Americans who themselves are not millionaires or billionaires to root for the rich and condemn and revile the poor. You've a well written post here. I enjoyed reading it. However, I do not agree. "Poor" does neither mean stupid nor lazy. Income level does not equate to an individual's level of personal motivation, does not dictate or describe their natural level of intelligence. You describe the gross national potential for earning capital as an infinitely flexible pie. The pie is very finite I would argue. There's just no real world possibility of half let alone three quarters or more of American wage earners ascending to millionaire status irregardless of their motivation or education level. Most of the "pie" is spoken for long before the wage earner is born or comes of age to enter the workforce.

Again, I do not comprehend this defense of the extremely wealthy by middle class or lower individuals. Makes me wonder if all this tech produced by mega silicon valley corporations is embedded with some form of subliminal propaganda transmitter. While I do not agree with government programs that enable people to stagnate voluntarily, there's just no positive or logical argument to be made for the gap between America's poorest and wealthiest. What proponents of your thought process have missed is that the government already has been--for decades--interfering with the people's ability to vastly better themselves, and as much as "welfare" systems seems to aid and abet the poor, many many more billions have been spent to aid and enable the wealthy.

I'm sure I am not alone in feeling insulted by the generalizations made against poor Americans in your post. As someone who hails from a blue-collar family I can vouch for the intelligence and extremely hearty work eithic of your average factory worker, mill worker, machinist, etc. People do not choose by and large to be poor. Their brains certainly are not somehow defective because they are, nor do they enjoy making minimum wage and depending on government assistance. The wealthy have never had it so good. They go about their deified existence, spending limitless spoils and apparently their propaganda is so effective that now they've gotten members of lower castes arguing for their right to control a disgustingly, overhwelmingly large percentage of the American pie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"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 war against the poor. I've never understood this...this tendency of many, many Americans who themselves are not millionaires or billionaires to root for the rich and condemn and revile the poor. You've a well written post here. I enjoyed reading it. However, I do not agree. "Poor" does neither mean stupid nor lazy. Income level does not equate to an individual's level of personal motivation, does not dictate or describe their natural level of intelligence. You describe the gross national potential for earning capital as an infinitely flexible pie. The pie is very finite I would argue. There's just no real world possibility of half let alone three quarters or more of American wage earners ascending to millionaire status irregardless of their motivation or education level. Most of the "pie" is spoken for long before the wage earner is born or comes of age to enter the workforce.

Again, I do not comprehend this defense of the extremely wealthy by middle class or lower individuals. Makes me wonder if all this tech produced by mega silicon valley corporations is embedded with some form of subliminal propaganda transmitter. While I do not agree with government programs that enable people to stagnate voluntarily, there's just no positive or logical argument to be made for the gap between America's poorest and wealthiest. What proponents of your thought process have missed is that the government already has been--for decades--interfering with the people's ability to vastly better themselves, and as much as "welfare" systems seems to aid and abet the poor, many many more billions have been spent to aid and enable the wealthy.

I'm sure I am not alone in feeling insulted by the generalizations made against poor Americans in your post. As someone who hails from a blue-collar family I can vouch for the intelligence and extremely hearty work eithic of your average factory worker, mill worker, machinist, etc. People do not choose by and large to be poor. Their brains certainly are not somehow defective because they are, nor do they enjoy making minimum wage and depending on government assistance. The wealthy have never had it so good. They go about their deified existence, spending limitless spoils and apparently their propaganda is so effective that now they've gotten members of lower castes arguing for their right to control a disgustingly, overhwelmingly large percentage of the American pie.

There is no "pie"..Stop it. The zero sum game is a Keynesian creation.
Your premise that poor people are of the same ability and intelligence as everyone else furthers the insane notion that all human beings are equal and therefore we must have equality of outcome.
Tell ya what. When I was in high school and entered my first day of advanced math( Trig) I knew I was out of my league. I did not have a clue and I knew I would be beating my head against a wall just to fall behind. I dropped the course. There were kids in that same class, that thought Trigonometry was a breeze. Proof right there that we are NOT equal. Advanced math skills are 100% necessary to go into the field of engineering. They were smarter at math than I. Engineers make more money. End of story.
Now....Let's take a look at self made individuals who A) had the initiative and desire to achieve even with barriers in front of them or had little or no financial base but had great ideas. These people come from all walks of life.
I will give to two.
I had a friend in my hometown who's father was an iron worker. He grew tired of the jobs He got sick of the months of down time between jobs. So he decided instead of working as an iron worker he would be in the board room of the company building the building. So he spent 8 years going to night school. He got his BS in building trades with a minor in business management. He networked himself and soon landed a job in the planning dept at one of the largest sky scraper builders on the East Coast. After 10 years, my friend's dad was making well into six figures. So here was a guy who came from a long line of blue collar construction people decided to get a degree and wound up making a very good living.
Example number two...This guy was your typical High School pot head. He ran with a shady crowd. In his late 20's his parents got sick of the nonsense and kicked him out of their house. Well, the alarm went off. He scraped together a few bucks and bought an older model dump truck. With that he started doing odd jobs hauling off demolition remains from construction sites. By the time I left my home town, the former high school pot head had 5 trucks and 10 employees.
Two very different people with different levels of intelligence but both decided to work harder than the average person to get what the wanted.
On planet liberal this NEVER happens. According to the class warfare libs, the people in these examples either got lucky or won the lottery of life. Because to the average class envy lib, there is no such thing as getting ahead. It's all doom and gloom.
There is no "war against the poor". Who said there was?

 

[logical4u]

"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 war against the poor. I've never understood this...this tendency of many, many Americans who themselves are not millionaires or billionaires to root for the rich and condemn and revile the poor. You've a well written post here. I enjoyed reading it. However, I do not agree. "Poor" does neither mean stupid nor lazy. Income level does not equate to an individual's level of personal motivation, does not dictate or describe their natural level of intelligence. You describe the gross national potential for earning capital as an infinitely flexible pie. The pie is very finite I would argue. There's just no real world possibility of half let alone three quarters or more of American wage earners ascending to millionaire status irregardless of their motivation or education level. Most of the "pie" is spoken for long before the wage earner is born or comes of age to enter the workforce.

Again, I do not comprehend this defense of the extremely wealthy by middle class or lower individuals. Makes me wonder if all this tech produced by mega silicon valley corporations is embedded with some form of subliminal propaganda transmitter. While I do not agree with government programs that enable people to stagnate voluntarily, there's just no positive or logical argument to be made for the gap between America's poorest and wealthiest. What proponents of your thought process have missed is that the government already has been--for decades--interfering with the people's ability to vastly better themselves, and as much as "welfare" systems seems to aid and abet the poor, many many more billions have been spent to aid and enable the wealthy.

I'm sure I am not alone in feeling insulted by the generalizations made against poor Americans in your post. As someone who hails from a blue-collar family I can vouch for the intelligence and extremely hearty work eithic of your average factory worker, mill worker, machinist, etc. People do not choose by and large to be poor. Their brains certainly are not somehow defective because they are, nor do they enjoy making minimum wage and depending on government assistance. The wealthy have never had it so good. They go about their deified existence, spending limitless spoils and apparently their propaganda is so effective that now they've gotten members of lower castes arguing for their right to control a disgustingly, overhwelmingly large percentage of the American pie.

Being "against" the "wealthy"? Does that mean that wealth is bad? Does that mean that no one should be allowed to collect "wealth"?

No one here is "against" the poor. Intelligence and hard work are no guarentee for success in this country. There must be a habit or pattern of wise (different from intelligence) choices going thru life. I watch people that make over $70,000 dollars a year spend every penny they have on toys, trips, and frills. They do not contribute to their retirement, they do not invest in themselves, they do not invest in tangible assets. Where do you think they are going to be when they "retire"? I will tell you.... they will be "poor". They will live in poverty, and demand the "gov't" give them resources to live the way they did when they were working. It will not happen, but if you have enough of these people crying, more is taken from those that ARE working, and "wasted" on those that are not.

Most of us, start, "poor". We do not come from wealthy families. We do not have a trust fund. Our parents (notice two!) taught us how to work and to invest in ourselves (education via school, apprenticeships, etc). We worked really hard, and tried to make good choices; we did not spend most of our money "earned" on frills. After we finally are making enough money where we can buy a new washer out of savings when the old one craps out, we hear from people like you, that we need to pay "our fair share". We have paid "our fair share", and then some. We want every other person in these United States of America to "pay their fair share". They can do that "best" by having the opportunities to work and build wealth without the gov't stepping in, once some politician determines that amount of savings is "too much for a taxpayer", that income is "too much for a taxpayer". We are not supporting the "wealthy". You cannot touch the "wealthy" in this country. Those in congress have seen to it that those that have millions, and millions of dollars have "tax shelters" and protection schemes in place for "their wealth". We want people to be able to achieve "wealth", without other people determining how much is "too much". Taxing people that are on the cusp of "being wealthy" just knocks down the upper middle class, and prevents them from joinging the "wealthy". It is one of the reasons there IS such a chasm between the wealthy and the "poor", "progressive" policies ensure that it will be almost impossible for those born into families that are not wealthy will be taxed at such rates that they can never join the wealthy. And those that claim to "care" about the poor are ensuring the poor have even less of a chance by perpetuating the lies that if you are born poor, you can never become anything else. Shame on every last one of you.

And yes, I realize that there are "some" people that truly need help. If you look thru the history of this country, before "welfare", you will find no instances of massive amounts of "poor people" perishing in the streets due to hunger or exposure. This country has the "wealthiest" population in the history of man. It was not because of "gov't involvement". It was because of Christian/Judeo values applied to society, with the belief that every man was blessed by the "Creator". It is up to that individual man (masculine is proper when addressing a mixed crowd), to decide how to apply himself, and the relationship he chooses to have with his Maker.

Now, get off of our backs, and go encourage those that are "poor" and spread the Good News, that they are loved, and have the power and the opportunity to change their lives, as long as they live in this country. Wealth is built by the blessings of the Lord, hard work, and making mostly wise choices. Live long and prosper.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are some people who really need help but they are very few. Most of the poor are voluntarily poor. They are poor because they get benefits for being poor. We pay them to be poor. We aren't helping the sick, the crippled, the old or the very young. We are paying perfectly healthy people to be poor and reward the merely lazy. Poverty isn't painful enough. Poverty should be so bad, that no one in their right mind would accept poverty and do anything they can to move out of poverty.

Today we've moved beyond poverty to just being unequal. One need not be really poor to have a complaint, just don't have as much as someone else. This isn't merely wrong, it's disgusting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are some people who really need help but they are very few. Most of the poor are voluntarily poor. They are poor because they get benefits for being poor. We pay them to be poor. We aren't helping the sick, the crippled, the old or the very young. We are paying perfectly healthy people to be poor and reward the merely lazy. Poverty isn't painful enough. Poverty should be so bad, that no one in their right mind would accept poverty and do anything they can to move out of poverty.

Today we've moved beyond poverty to just being unequal. One need not be really poor to have a complaint, just don't have as much as someone else. This isn't merely wrong, it's disgusting.

take checks and benefits away and you are left with poor. Jesus, putting the cart before the horse...

do anything to avoid being poor like people used to do -- beg, borrow, and steal. Poverty creates anarchy you stupid bitch. LOL

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course people would do anything to avoid being poor, but in some society opportunity is lacking,

Reality is poverty will always exist. People like katz are too filled with hate and anger to rationally live amongst others

 

[Friends]

First of all, Sweden has what 6 million people? Next, Sweden is a virtual homogeneous society which over the years has become content and obedient. Swedes are generally hard working and proud. The typical Swede would NEVER sit idly by and feel entitled to the largess of others...

The final analysis is this....No matter how much you whine, wish or dream, the US will NOT become the socialist utopia you desire.

By mentioning the low population of Sweden you imply that if the Untied States was divided into several smaller countries the economies in these countries would be better. I think the opposite would be more nearly the case.

It may be true that blacks would game the system. When the War on Poverty made welfare benefits more generous and easier to qualify for millions of blacks quite low wage jobs and went on welfare. Whites are less likely to behave this way. With our higher average IQs we are less likely to be stuck in low wage jobs to begin with.

Social Democracy has only worked in countries where nearly everyone is white, although I think it would work fine with an Oriental population. European countries are making a terrible mistake by allowing the immigration of blacks and Muslims. Blacks have high rates of crime and lower average IQs because they are closer in number of generations to the savagery of the stone age. Muslims commit acts of terrorism.

Nevertheless, according to a survey released February 4, 2010, "More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism."
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

According to a survey Rasmussen Reports released April 9, 2009 20 percent of Americans prefer socialism to capitalism.

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism - Rasmussen Reports™

According to a Pew Research Poll released last year, "Forty-nine percent of people [from 18 to 29] say they have a positive view of socialism."

Young People More Likely To Favor Socialism Than Capitalism: Pew

The fact that large minorities in the Untied States prefer socialism is significant because no one with national name recognition has advocated socialism for a generation. Even Ralph Nader has not advocated it by name.

Since 2000, and to a lesser extent since 1980 the rich have gotten richer, while average pay checks buy less.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

If this continues, I expect socialism to become increasingly popular in the United States. Already there is a growing demand to raise taxes on the rich.

 

[Moonglow]

"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)

income inequality is a disgrace to anotion that claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you know of the parable about the workers in the field you know that all humans are rewarded equally no matter when they were born, or what time of day they started working in the fields.
The govt wants to help because, well let's face it, it takes a community to help make people rich and those that work hard would like to be rewarded better, for a better lifestyle, and the govt. wants to level the playing field because some people are not into fair play or fair compensation.
The Constitution was written by wealthy landowners(landed gentry) that had slaves(not well compensated workes) and their ideas was about freedom from a tyrannical govt., not economic freedom, or parity of social status fo the masses.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are some people who really need help but they are very few. Most of the poor are voluntarily poor. They are poor because they get benefits for being poor. We pay them to be poor. We aren't helping the sick, the crippled, the old or the very young. We are paying perfectly healthy people to be poor and reward the merely lazy. Poverty isn't painful enough. Poverty should be so bad, that no one in their right mind would accept poverty and do anything they can to move out of poverty.

Today we've moved beyond poverty to just being unequal. One need not be really poor to have a complaint, just don't have as much as someone else. This isn't merely wrong, it's disgusting.

take checks and benefits away and you are left with poor. Jesus, putting the cart before the horse...

do anything to avoid being poor like people used to do -- beg, borrow, and steal. Poverty creates anarchy you stupid bitch. LOL

Poverty doesn't create anarchy. Greed, envy and jealousy create anarchy. The difference between the people of today and the people during the Great Depression is that no one was told they were entitled to anything.

 

[Meathead]

It's a non issue. Totally. Completely. The gov't might as well try to make everyone equally good at playing the piano. Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.
This is unlike some countries where inequality stems from crony capitalism and family ties.
North Korea probably has the most income equality out there--everyone is miserable and dirt poor.

Spot on. As Churchill said. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

 

[thereisnospoon]

"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)

income inequality is a disgrace to anotion that claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you know of the parable about the workers in the field you know that all humans are rewarded equally no matter when they were born, or what time of day they started working in the fields.
The govt wants to help because, well let's face it, it takes a community to help make people rich and those that work hard would like to be rewarded better, for a better lifestyle, and the govt. wants to level the playing field because some people are not into fair play or fair compensation.
The Constitution was written by wealthy landowners(landed gentry) that had slaves(not well compensated workes) and their ideas was about freedom from a tyrannical govt., not economic freedom, or parity of social status fo the masses.

That's a bunch of crap.
Most people are poor or are low income because they choose to be. By that I mean, they do nothing to help themselves to get out of their situation. ANYONE can go to school, learn a trade, improve their skill set or come up with an idea that will help them to NOT be poor.

 

[WillowTree]

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

Let's talk about STeve Jobs and Bill Gates. What say ewe?

 

[Katzndogz]

George Soros who made his fortune shorting the Bank of England is an ideal example of democrats.