Republicans: why do you ignore the wealth inequality issue?

[The T]

I am STILL a fan of wealth inequality.

It is absurd to think that everybody should be able to have the same wealth.

Whatever the fair base-line might be, as long as it's satisfied, those who have talent and industriousness or skills, etc., SHOULD be able to do better than some guy who can barely manage to flip burgers or clean a floor or bathroom.

As TIME magazine once put on thier cover?

Men and Women are different...(Why wouldn't it carry over to the individual)?

Exactly. It is a fact that some are just wired for success more than others whether it is in brain power or motivation/ambition or raw native ability or stamina or many other factors. It is also a fact that some are blessed with advantages provided by their families that are not available to the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with that because we still had to use our God given gifts, and somebody back down the line worked damn hard to be able to pass advantages along to their progeny. It all comes down to choices. Nobody should be despised or put down because they are naturally gifted or because their parents worked hard to give them a leg up or a better chance for a better life. Otherwise what's the point of making good choices or working hard at all?

Exactly...regardless of gender, regardless of advantages/disadvantages...the Founders in thier wisdom saw fit to ensure that government didn't interfere in any capacity with the individual's God-given right to have a shot at liberty and wahtever course they sought.

Some (many) have blown it by poor decision making...and think it's Government's purpose now to intervene.

Obama addresses it (regardless...he doesn't care and all about HIM any way)...and these same people don't see fit to correct thier own course, but rather remain blinded and insist politicians they don't know (or could care less about them and are getting rich regardless)...ACT for them.

The height of laziness/irresponsibility it is when you have the liberty to correct it yourself with a little work...but insist Government act for you.

Boggles the mind as the rest of us who are responsible have to foot the bills.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was just reading that the artist Thomas Kinkade passed away this weekend. He was 54 and an extremely wealthy man, certainly among the 1 percenters.

He was born into and was raised in a family of extremely limited means. But he was born with a rare gift for creating a unique and highly recognizable and marketable art form, most especially when incorporated with his signature "Artist of light" concepts used not only in paintings but in many other decorative or literary forms.

And without any particular intention or planning on his part going into it, Kinkade's work was used in many ways to provide a livelihood/income for hundreds or thousands of others.

And all he did was create art which he loved to do. Worked hard? Depends on one's defnition of 'working hard.' He wasn't running a jack hammer or clearing brush or shoveling gravel that could be considered hard work. But he was putting in the hours using a talent he was born with and making lots and lots of money.

Should he have been restricted in how much he could earn? In how much he should be allowed to keep of what he earned that would be calculated in a different way than what you and I earn?

A free people chooses what they will do with the abilities and opportunities they have. And that is true regardless of the circumstances into which we are born.

 

[The T]

Was just reading that the artist Thomas Kinkade passed away this weekend. He was 54 and an extremely wealthy man, certainly among the 1 percenters.

He was born into and was raised in a family of extremely limited means. But he was born with a rare gift for creating a unique and highly recognizable and marketable art form, most especially when incorporated with his signature "Artist of light" concepts used not only in paintings but in many other decorative or literary forms.

And without any particular intention or planning on his part going into it, Kinkade's work was used in many ways to provide a livelihood/income for hundreds or thousands of others.

And all he did was create art which he loved to do. Worked hard? Depends on one's defnition of 'working hard.' He wasn't running a jack hammer or clearing brush or shoveling gravel that could be considered hard work. But he was putting in the hours using a talent he was born with and making lots and lots of money.

Should he have been restricted in how much he could earn? In how much he should be allowed to keep of what he earned that would be calculated in a different way than what you and I earn?

A free people chooses what they will do with the abilities and opportunities they have. And that is true regardless of the circumstances into which we are born.

Choose your course...and go with it. If it doesn't pan out...try again...and on your own volition...and not the demand Government force it on your behalf to the detriment of others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[buckeye45_73]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Ok first this sounds like academic socialism. Wealth inequity is like the word socioeconomic, it's a liberal term. Ok first why not worry about yourself first? Maybe you are wealthy? Maybe not? IF you are, then just give it away, if you arent' then work to get there. Why worry about how much money John Kerry or the Kennedys, or Bill Gates, or Paul Allen or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or whatever rich person you want, has? I've never understood that. Who cares what they make, as long as it's legal. If it's drug running, we need to know and we'll pillage them, if it's legit I dont care. I think athletes make way too much money, but I dont really care that much. Whether they do or dont it doesnt really matter. We dont need a law or liberals protesting it. If you dont like it dont go to the games.

It also doesnt help when we have more government workers than private workers and when government beneifts are free to their employees, that does cost us money, so government salaries do effect me in taxes. Private sector ones do in prices, but if McDonalds is too high I'll go somewhere else, maybe Burger King.

 

[Foxfyre]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Ok first this sounds like academic socialism. Wealth inequity is like the word socioeconomic, it's a liberal term. Ok first why not worry about yourself first? Maybe you are wealthy? Maybe not? IF you are, then just give it away, if you arent' then work to get there. Why worry about how much money John Kerry or the Kennedys, or Bill Gates, or Paul Allen or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or whatever rich person you want, has? I've never understood that. Who cares what they make, as long as it's legal. If it's drug running, we need to know and we'll pillage them, if it's legit I dont care. I think athletes make way too much money, but I dont really care that much. Whether they do or dont it doesnt really matter. We dont need a law or liberals protesting it. If you dont like it dont go to the games.

It also doesnt help when we have more government workers than private workers and when government beneifts are free to their employees, that does cost us money, so government salaries do effect me in taxes. Private sector ones do in prices, but if McDonalds is too high I'll go somewhere else, maybe Burger King.

Well we might debate whether 'socioeconomic' is a liberal term. I am about as opposite a modern day American liberal as it gets, but I like and use the term 'socioeconomic' a lot.

Otherwise I don't have any quarrel with your comments here.

It is interesting, however, that some of our friends here will continually complain that the CEO of a big corporation makes so much more than the janitor. To them it doesn't matter that he or she must have tremendous knowledge and skill to be responsible for thousands of employees, maybe thousands of components and/or processes that go into the products they make or sell, and what a tremendous skill set is required to juggle costs, expenses, and keeping unions, the board of directors, the stockholders, the work force, and the customers all happy. All that doesn't matter because the janitor works hard for his paycheck and there shouldn't be so much disparity.

But you never hear the same people complain about the janitor at the ball park making so much less than the multi-million contract of the professional football player or baseball player. Interesting, huh?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Show me a society where wealth is equal? Where and how does that exist? Now society is without wealth inequality.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Ok first this sounds like academic socialism. Wealth inequity is like the word socioeconomic, it's a liberal term. Ok first why not worry about yourself first? Maybe you are wealthy? Maybe not? IF you are, then just give it away, if you arent' then work to get there. Why worry about how much money John Kerry or the Kennedys, or Bill Gates, or Paul Allen or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or whatever rich person you want, has? I've never understood that. Who cares what they make, as long as it's legal. If it's drug running, we need to know and we'll pillage them, if it's legit I dont care. I think athletes make way too much money, but I dont really care that much. Whether they do or dont it doesnt really matter. We dont need a law or liberals protesting it. If you dont like it dont go to the games.

It also doesnt help when we have more government workers than private workers and when government beneifts are free to their employees, that does cost us money, so government salaries do effect me in taxes. Private sector ones do in prices, but if McDonalds is too high I'll go somewhere else, maybe Burger King.

Well we might debate whether 'socioeconomic' is a liberal term. I am about as opposite a modern day American liberal as it gets, but I like and use the term 'socioeconomic' a lot.

Otherwise I don't have any quarrel with your comments here.

It is interesting, however, that some of our friends here will continually complain that the CEO of a big corporation makes so much more than the janitor. To them it doesn't matter that he or she must have tremendous knowledge and skill to be responsible for thousands of employees, maybe thousands of components and/or processes that go into the products they make or sell, and what a tremendous skill set is required to juggle costs, expenses, and keeping unions, the board of directors, the stockholders, the work force, and the customers all happy. All that doesn't matter because the janitor works hard for his paycheck and there shouldn't be so much disparity.

But you never hear the same people complain about the janitor at the ball park making so much less than the multi-million contract of the professional football player or baseball player. Interesting, huh?

it sure is and along with your point, how much does an education cost nowadays. 4 years in college is expensive as hell, so you better get something out of your degree, not some academic liberal arts degree like philosophy. Is there a huge market for those? I really like history and was majoring it unitl I came to my senses and went for an IT degree. history is a passion, but I dont want to teach, so there's no much else it can do.

 

[P@triot]

Was just reading that the artist Thomas Kinkade passed away this weekend. He was 54 and an extremely wealthy man, certainly among the 1 percenters.

He was born into and was raised in a family of extremely limited means. But he was born with a rare gift for creating a unique and highly recognizable and marketable art form, most especially when incorporated with his signature "Artist of light" concepts used not only in paintings but in many other decorative or literary forms.

And without any particular intention or planning on his part going into it, Kinkade's work was used in many ways to provide a livelihood/income for hundreds or thousands of others.

And all he did was create art which he loved to do. Worked hard? Depends on one's defnition of 'working hard.' He wasn't running a jack hammer or clearing brush or shoveling gravel that could be considered hard work. But he was putting in the hours using a talent he was born with and making lots and lots of money.

Should he have been restricted in how much he could earn? In how much he should be allowed to keep of what he earned that would be calculated in a different way than what you and I earn?

A free people chooses what they will do with the abilities and opportunities they have. And that is true regardless of the circumstances into which we are born.

This is an exceptional post! The problem with the idiot liberal is that they inexplicably feel they are entitled to what other people have. They can't even explain WHY they are entitled, they just feel entitled.

At the end of the day - they are too lazy to work and can't stand the fact that someone has something they don't. They are spiteful and envious little creatures who are filled with jealousy over others success.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok first this sounds like academic socialism. Wealth inequity is like the word socioeconomic, it's a liberal term. Ok first why not worry about yourself first? Maybe you are wealthy? Maybe not? IF you are, then just give it away, if you arent' then work to get there. Why worry about how much money John Kerry or the Kennedys, or Bill Gates, or Paul Allen or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or whatever rich person you want, has? I've never understood that. Who cares what they make, as long as it's legal. If it's drug running, we need to know and we'll pillage them, if it's legit I dont care. I think athletes make way too much money, but I dont really care that much. Whether they do or dont it doesnt really matter. We dont need a law or liberals protesting it. If you dont like it dont go to the games.

It also doesnt help when we have more government workers than private workers and when government beneifts are free to their employees, that does cost us money, so government salaries do effect me in taxes. Private sector ones do in prices, but if McDonalds is too high I'll go somewhere else, maybe Burger King.

Well we might debate whether 'socioeconomic' is a liberal term. I am about as opposite a modern day American liberal as it gets, but I like and use the term 'socioeconomic' a lot.

Otherwise I don't have any quarrel with your comments here.

It is interesting, however, that some of our friends here will continually complain that the CEO of a big corporation makes so much more than the janitor. To them it doesn't matter that he or she must have tremendous knowledge and skill to be responsible for thousands of employees, maybe thousands of components and/or processes that go into the products they make or sell, and what a tremendous skill set is required to juggle costs, expenses, and keeping unions, the board of directors, the stockholders, the work force, and the customers all happy. All that doesn't matter because the janitor works hard for his paycheck and there shouldn't be so much disparity.

But you never hear the same people complain about the janitor at the ball park making so much less than the multi-million contract of the professional football player or baseball player. Interesting, huh?

it sure is and along with your point, how much does an education cost nowadays. 4 years in college is expensive as hell, so you better get something out of your degree, not some academic liberal arts degree like philosophy. Is there a huge market for those? I really like history and was majoring it unitl I came to my senses and went for an IT degree. history is a passion, but I dont want to teach, so there's no much else it can do.

I love history too and managed to acquire enough hours for a minor but, like you, I didn't think I wanted to teach in the public schools and put my main focus on something I could use to make a living. A study of history, however, does strongly enhance one's ability to think critically and analytically and understand how so many things are interconnected, and that no single issue can be contained within a nice, neat, package unrelated to anything else. I think at least a basic course or two on economics enhances that, but you need the history to fully understand how the economics affects the real world. And sometimes you need the economics to understand the history.

At least a study of history and economics USED to accomplish that. These days I think public education is indoctrinating with selective facts and concepts and not teaching students to think critically or analytically. That is absolutely the only thing I can come up with to explain how skewed and uniformed so many seem to be on issues like wealth inequality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was just reading that the artist Thomas Kinkade passed away this weekend. He was 54 and an extremely wealthy man, certainly among the 1 percenters.

He was born into and was raised in a family of extremely limited means. But he was born with a rare gift for creating a unique and highly recognizable and marketable art form, most especially when incorporated with his signature "Artist of light" concepts used not only in paintings but in many other decorative or literary forms.

And without any particular intention or planning on his part going into it, Kinkade's work was used in many ways to provide a livelihood/income for hundreds or thousands of others.

And all he did was create art which he loved to do. Worked hard? Depends on one's defnition of 'working hard.' He wasn't running a jack hammer or clearing brush or shoveling gravel that could be considered hard work. But he was putting in the hours using a talent he was born with and making lots and lots of money.

Should he have been restricted in how much he could earn? In how much he should be allowed to keep of what he earned that would be calculated in a different way than what you and I earn?

A free people chooses what they will do with the abilities and opportunities they have. And that is true regardless of the circumstances into which we are born.

This is an exceptional post! The problem with the idiot liberal is that they inexplicably feel they are entitled to what other people have. They can't even explain WHY they are entitled, they just feel entitled.

At the end of the day - they are too lazy to work and can't stand the fact that someone has something they don't. They are spiteful and envious little creatures who are filled with jealousy over others success.

Thanks, but I'm not at all sure that it is an issue of laziness.

We conservatives have--often as an exercise in futility--been trying to explain how restricting what people can earn and/or punishing the success they achieve is counterproductive for everybody. People being what they are get tired of being knocked down no matter what level they have achieved. And when they get tired enough, they don't make the effort any more.

And we have a left leaning education system that is promoting a concept that it is okay to knock down the rich and everybody else has already been knocked down. They start out with a big chip on their shoulder feeling cheated and victimized. And they believe they have been knocked down before they ever try.

We have a whole generation now of people who have been taught from apparently First Grade through college that the system is unfair, that there are people who don't deserve and/or didn't earn their wealth, and that a just society 'spreads the wealth around' so that nobody gets left out. They aren't taught to get an education, acquire marketable skills, put in their time in the trenches to learn a trade, acquire references, develop a work ethic. Stay away from the illegal and stupid stuff and wait until you are married to a stable person to have kids. They aren't taught that in this great country, those who do that have a 99% chance to prosper. Those who do not, despite the circumstances into which they are born, greatly diminish their chances for success they can be proud of.

And they don't have a clue why a hard working janitor does not deserve closer to the same wages as the CEO in his plush office.