Romney: Income Inequality should be discussed in "Quiet Rooms"

[jaybags]

Actually, what he was talking about was the need for 'income inequality' to be addressed in policy making.... with reason, and logic.... and not in some media spin designed not to inform but to outrage.

And I agree with him. This thread is a classic example of why we need to use calm, rational thought.... because the media are incapable of not spinning the meaning of a person's words... and fools are not capable of thinking beyond the media spin.

Problem is these smoke filled...er quiet rooms wont have regular people in the discussion. Thats the point. Willard thinks the public is illgoical and irrational. Therefore leave it up to the elites to determine what is fair.

If you believe for one minute his quiet room comment was anything other than a way to keep regular irrational illogical guys i.e. the public away from the discussion you are lying. Leave it up to the elites!

So, did the media tell you what "Willard" thinks? Or have you recently become telepathic?

Having said that, IF that is what he thinks - judging by the bullshit on this forum - he may well be right. It does appear that many Americans lean towards hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational thought.

you hit the nail right on the head here. look at the attack ads. that seems to be how most of the sheeple decide who to vote for and dont take the time to research the candidates themselves.

but you seem to be arguing that discussions should take place in private and that the public has no right to be made aware of what is being discussed. which is what this thread is about. is that the case? because that doesnt make any sense

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's not what he said, nor is it what he meant. But, you stick to your hysterical hyperbole.... it's so much more fun than logic.

I think Romney's words speak for themselves.

"I like to be able to fire people"

"Corporations are people, too, my friend."

"I can't have illegals, I'm running for office, for pete's sake!"

"I'll bet you $10,000."

I can see why he'd want to have this conversation in a quiet room. In public, he says these asspoundingly stupid, insensitive things where even Conservatives are starting to realize they've been had!

Are you being deliberately thick as pig shit or do you genuinely not understand that meaning of the word 'context'?

Explain the statement above about corporations being people in whatever context you feel is necessary and relevant.

 

[California Girl]

There is a finite amount of 'the pie'.

Income inequality relates to who gets how much of the pie.

Should the workers who actually do the work get more or less?

Should the capitalists who let their money do the work get more or less?

Again, I can see what you're saying... but unless we are prepared to consider the whole issue rationally, instead of trivializing it (which you have) then we cannot solve it. You have one view of 'work' but that does not take into account the 'risk' that those who get more take.

If I risk everything I own in order to set up a company which employs you and I pay you for your work, which if us deserves to benefit from the profit? You for your work - for which you have already benefited or me for taking the risks?

See, we keep on forcing this into a 'black or white' scenario and it won't fit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no such thing as income inequality. There is envy. There is jealousy. But no income inequality.

I take it you're referring to all the envy and jealousy we saw a while back directed towards teachers and firefighters and policemen and other unionized public sector workers

over their good pay and benefits?

Is that what you're talking about?

 

[rightwinger]

Income inequality does not mean rob from the rich and give to the poor. Any legislator needs to look at proposed legislation in terms of who benefits and who is hurt by the legislation. In the past, incentives were given to the wealthy on the assumption that these incentives would result in more jobs and an overall stronger economy. It didnt work.

There is nothing wrong evaluating current income and wealth distribution in making decisions on future incentives and where they are most needed

 

[California Girl]

Problem is these smoke filled...er quiet rooms wont have regular people in the discussion. Thats the point. Willard thinks the public is illgoical and irrational. Therefore leave it up to the elites to determine what is fair.

If you believe for one minute his quiet room comment was anything other than a way to keep regular irrational illogical guys i.e. the public away from the discussion you are lying. Leave it up to the elites!

So, did the media tell you what "Willard" thinks? Or have you recently become telepathic?

Having said that, IF that is what he thinks - judging by the bullshit on this forum - he may well be right. It does appear that many Americans lean towards hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational thought.

you hit the nail right on the head here. look at the attack ads. that seems to be how most of the sheeple decide who to vote for and dont take the time to research the candidates themselves.

but you seem to be arguing that discussions should take place in private and that the public has no right to be made aware of what is being discussed. which is what this thread is about. is that the case? because that doesnt make any sense

I have never said that discussions should only take place in private. I have said that public debate is only beneficial when it is informed debate and not partisan hyperbole. I like the public debate - I just wish that people would inform themselves with honesty before forming their opinion.

 

[California Girl]

Income inequality does not mean rob from the rich and give to the poor. Any legislator needs to look at proposed legislation in terms of who benefits and who is hurt by the legislation. In the past, incentives were given to the wealthy on the assumption that these incentives would result in more jobs and an overall stronger economy. It didnt work.

There is nothing wrong evaluating current income and wealth distribution in making decisions on future incentives and where they are most needed

Again, you're making assumptions that are not necessarily true. While I can understand - and partially agree about 'incentives' given to the 'wealthy', it appears that we over simplify the reality.

When you talk about 'wealth distribution', you consider taking from those who have most which you say will benefit those who have least. That hasn't worked either.

Personally, my opinion is that we need a more rational, realistic debate and solutions that benefit both those that take the risks and those who do the work.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a finite amount of 'the pie'.

Income inequality relates to who gets how much of the pie.

Should the workers who actually do the work get more or less?

Should the capitalists who let their money do the work get more or less?

You have just repudiated the entire concept of America. The American model has always been to make a bigger pie.

The only rational answer to your question is those who take the risk get the greatest reward.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a finite amount of 'the pie'.

Income inequality relates to who gets how much of the pie.

Should the workers who actually do the work get more or less?

Should the capitalists who let their money do the work get more or less?

Again, I can see what you're saying... but unless we are prepared to consider the whole issue rationally, instead of trivializing it (which you have) then we cannot solve it. You have one view of 'work' but that does not take into account the 'risk' that those who get more take.

If I risk everything I own in order to set up a company which employs you and I pay you for your work, which if us deserves to benefit from the profit? You for your work - for which you have already benefited or me for taking the risks?

See, we keep on forcing this into a 'black or white' scenario and it won't fit.

Who risks everything to start a business? How about the risk of taking a job, and then starting a family, buying a home, etc., etc., all that depends on the income from that job? That's real risk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a finite amount of 'the pie'.

Income inequality relates to who gets how much of the pie.

Should the workers who actually do the work get more or less?

Should the capitalists who let their money do the work get more or less?

You have just repudiated the entire concept of America. The American model has always been to make a bigger pie.

The only rational answer to your question is those who take the risk get the greatest reward.

The workers take the greatest risk. Their lives, their families, their wellbeing depend on the job.

Investors generally invest money they can afford to lose. That's a far smaller risk.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no such thing as income inequality. There is envy. There is jealousy. But no income inequality.

It's not quite as straightforward as that.

Which is why I agree with Romney - it needs to be addressed by rational people with logic and reason.... and not by a bunch of ill-informed twits who form opinions without reference to facts.

Of course it is as straightforward as that! The complaint of income inequality has its basis in nothing but envy and jealousy. The very people who complain the loudest are the most unwilling to put forth the effort to raise their income! They prefer to use envy. It isn't fair that one person makes more than another. What someone DOES to make more money than another is out of the discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

Income inequality does not mean rob from the rich and give to the poor. Any legislator needs to look at proposed legislation in terms of who benefits and who is hurt by the legislation. In the past, incentives were given to the wealthy on the assumption that these incentives would result in more jobs and an overall stronger economy. It didnt work.

There is nothing wrong evaluating current income and wealth distribution in making decisions on future incentives and where they are most needed

Again, you're making assumptions that are not necessarily true. While I can understand - and partially agree about 'incentives' given to the 'wealthy', it appears that we over simplify the reality.

When you talk about 'wealth distribution', you consider taking from those who have most which you say will benefit those who have least. That hasn't worked either.

Personally, my opinion is that we need a more rational, realistic debate and solutions that benefit both those that take the risks and those who do the work.

Redistribution of wealth did not happen overnight. Nobody went to the middle class, took money from them and gave it to rich people. It was done slowly and meticulously. I also think it was done in good faith. They actually believed supply side economics and that it would help everyone

We need to reverse the damage of past government policies. Putting tax rates to where they were ten years ago is not a redistribution of wealth. It merely acknowledges a faulty tax policy. Incentives given to the wealthy to spur investment can just as easily go to the middle class. Not through cash handouts but tax write-offs for out of pocket medical expenses and their childrens education

 

[California Girl]

There is a finite amount of 'the pie'.

Income inequality relates to who gets how much of the pie.

Should the workers who actually do the work get more or less?

Should the capitalists who let their money do the work get more or less?

Again, I can see what you're saying... but unless we are prepared to consider the whole issue rationally, instead of trivializing it (which you have) then we cannot solve it. You have one view of 'work' but that does not take into account the 'risk' that those who get more take.

If I risk everything I own in order to set up a company which employs you and I pay you for your work, which if us deserves to benefit from the profit? You for your work - for which you have already benefited or me for taking the risks?

See, we keep on forcing this into a 'black or white' scenario and it won't fit.

Who risks everything to start a business? How about the risk of taking a job, and then starting a family, buying a home, etc., etc., all that depends on the income from that job? That's real risk.

Lots of business owners risk everything to start up a business. I know quite a few who have put their homes, savings and more into a business. People do it - and sometimes they lose everything.

The problem, to me, is that you appear to be 'either/or'.... we need to find ways to make it profitable for BOTH. Your risks are important to you... mine are important to me... neither one of us has the right to claim the higher. You have choices. I have choices. You assume your risks, I assume mine. If yours pay off better than mine, I do not have the right to take yours. You do see that?

I prefer solutions that do not demonize any group of people - not those who have less or those who have more. That is one of the things I despise about our politics... instead of rational thought, we demonize those we disagree with. It is petty, childish nonsense - and it is part of the reason why the country is suffering.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no such thing as income inequality. There is envy. There is jealousy. But no income inequality.

It's not quite as straightforward as that.

Which is why I agree with Romney - it needs to be addressed by rational people with logic and reason.... and not by a bunch of ill-informed twits who form opinions without reference to facts.

Of course it is as straightforward as that! The complaint of income inequality has its basis in nothing but envy and jealousy. The very people who complain the loudest are the most unwilling to put forth the effort to raise their income! They prefer to use envy. It isn't fair that one person makes more than another. What someone DOES to make more money than another is out of the discussion.

Again, tell us about that jealousy and envy of the pay and benefits of public sector employees. We heard plenty of that recently.

How is that when you say anything negative about an MBA like Romney raking in millions playing Monopoly with real life companies and people, it's class envy and jealousy,

but when you bitch about a teacher with a masters degree being greedy and overpaid at 60,000 a year with decent healthcare and a retirement plan,

magically it's a perfectly legitimate issue.

How does that work exactly?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a finite amount of 'the pie'.

Income inequality relates to who gets how much of the pie.

Should the workers who actually do the work get more or less?

Should the capitalists who let their money do the work get more or less?

You have just repudiated the entire concept of America. The American model has always been to make a bigger pie.

The only rational answer to your question is those who take the risk get the greatest reward.

The workers take the greatest risk. Their lives, their families, their wellbeing depend on the job.

Investors generally invest money they can afford to lose. That's a far smaller risk.

That's what's wrong! It's this kind of thinking. The workers don't take a risk at all. Whether the company does well or does poorly, the worker gets paid. Unless the company fails. Many times the company fails because the workers refuse to hold up their end of the work for hire bargain. They expect to get paid no matter how badly the company does. That's no risk.

If a company in need of financial capital tells investors that the investment will not get a significant return because the workers demand more money, the company will not get an investment and it will fail. The risk simply won't be taken!

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

How come Willard thinks that discussions about the crushing income inequality in this country should be discussed in "quiet rooms" but Welfare reform must be screamed about by all the GOP candidates? Hmmm?

Really?? Is it that difficult for you to see?

I assume that Willard is Mitt Romney... and I concur completely with his point.

Income inequality. In other words you're mad because someone else has more money than you do (jealousy is a powerful force). Whether they got it through being a trust fund baby (a very small percentage), they invested and increased their money, or they received a larger paycheck than most, the bottom line is that it is THEIR property. You are angry that someone has more money than you so you want to steal it from them and 'distribute' it to others who did not earn it, something the left likes to call 'social justice'. However, this social justice as you like to call it involves stealing at the point of a gun. Since I am a member of society and this 'social justice' hasn't occurred yet, then I WILL be part of conversation, whether you like it or not. Like everything in life, we can negotiate OR if the majority of this country decides they want to take more than I want to give, then I can move the assets to a more 'favorable' location.

For the past fifty years, we have been paying huge sums of money into Welfare. The bottom line is that we now know that it doesn't work. We're paying people to stand on the corner all day and do nothing; we're paying for illegal aliens; we're paying for women to lay on their backs and pump out children up to the point that their welfare won't increase; we're paying for crack babies and meth heads. AND we're paying them without requiring anything from them. We know that a large number of welfare recepients have multiple identities so that they can receive multiple benefits from welfare and WE KNOW that law enforcement is DISCOURAGED from reporting that OR from taking any action on it. Welfare reform MUST occur because IT IS NOT WORKING. Only in the name of 'social justice' would you spend billions of dollars on something that is not working.

Ah, the mantra of the 'evil wealthy.' "Crushing Income Inequality?" Why does the fact that Warren Buffett have billions of dollars have the potential to affect me? You know, I think Paris Hilton is a waste of human flesh. I don't want anything from her. The fact that you think you should steal her money is very telling...

 

[Katzndogz]

It's not quite as straightforward as that.

Which is why I agree with Romney - it needs to be addressed by rational people with logic and reason.... and not by a bunch of ill-informed twits who form opinions without reference to facts.

Of course it is as straightforward as that! The complaint of income inequality has its basis in nothing but envy and jealousy. The very people who complain the loudest are the most unwilling to put forth the effort to raise their income! They prefer to use envy. It isn't fair that one person makes more than another. What someone DOES to make more money than another is out of the discussion.

Again, tell us about that jealousy and envy of the pay and benefits of public sector employees. We heard plenty of that recently.

How is that when you say anything negative about an MBA like Romney raking in millions playing Monopoly with real life companies and people, it's class envy and jealousy,

but when you bitch about a teacher with a masters degree being greedy and overpaid at 60,000 a year with decent healthcare and a retirement plan,

magically it's a perfectly legitimate issue.

How does that work exactly?

What Romney does is more important and worth more than what the teacher does. Sorry. It's true. If you have a company that's struggling would you hire Romney to infuse it with money and manage a turn around or a teacher? Efforts of venture capitalists like Romney don't always work. Sometimes the company will fail. Sometimes no matter how hard the teacher works with an individual student, he or she is still going to get failing grade. As companies like Staples and Sports Authority grew and hired thousands more people, those workers would likely disagree with you. They owe their jobs to Romney, not to the teacher.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually, what he was talking about was the need for 'income inequality' to be addressed in policy making.... with reason, and logic.... and not in some media spin designed not to inform but to outrage.

And I agree with him. This thread is a classic example of why we need to use calm, rational thought.... because the media are incapable of not spinning the meaning of a person's words... and fools are not capable of thinking beyond the media spin.

Problem is these smoke filled...er quiet rooms wont have regular people in the discussion. Thats the point. Willard thinks the public is illgoical and irrational. Therefore leave it up to the elites to determine what is fair.

If you believe for one minute his quiet room comment was anything other than a way to keep regular irrational illogical guys i.e. the public away from the discussion you are lying. Leave it up to the elites!

So, did the media tell you what "Willard" thinks? Or have you recently become telepathic?

Having said that, IF that is what he thinks - judging by the bullshit on this forum - he may well be right. It does appear that many Americans lean towards hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational thought.

Quiet Rooms where logical and rational people can discuss policy *paraphrasing*. What did he mean by that? Again, are you lightly advocating against a public debate with that last sentence while maintaining the facade that you are unsure by adding "he may be right"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have just repudiated the entire concept of America. The American model has always been to make a bigger pie.

The only rational answer to your question is those who take the risk get the greatest reward.

The workers take the greatest risk. Their lives, their families, their wellbeing depend on the job.

Investors generally invest money they can afford to lose. That's a far smaller risk.

That's what's wrong! It's this kind of thinking. The workers don't take a risk at all. Whether the company does well or does poorly, the worker gets paid. Unless the company fails. Many times the company fails because the workers refuse to hold up their end of the work for hire bargain. They expect to get paid no matter how badly the company does. That's no risk.

If a company in need of financial capital tells investors that the investment will not get a significant return because the workers demand more money, the company will not get an investment and it will fail. The risk simply won't be taken!

You're an idiot. Workers take no risk? People don't take out mortgages, start families, have kids, build lives around the necessity of a job? Jobs don't disappear? Businesses don't move overseas? Businesses don't cut workforces to enhance profits for shareholders?

You've obviously never had a real job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it is as straightforward as that! The complaint of income inequality has its basis in nothing but envy and jealousy. The very people who complain the loudest are the most unwilling to put forth the effort to raise their income! They prefer to use envy. It isn't fair that one person makes more than another. What someone DOES to make more money than another is out of the discussion.

Again, tell us about that jealousy and envy of the pay and benefits of public sector employees. We heard plenty of that recently.

How is that when you say anything negative about an MBA like Romney raking in millions playing Monopoly with real life companies and people, it's class envy and jealousy,

but when you bitch about a teacher with a masters degree being greedy and overpaid at 60,000 a year with decent healthcare and a retirement plan,

magically it's a perfectly legitimate issue.

How does that work exactly?

What Romney does is more important and worth more than what the teacher does. Sorry. It's true. If you have a company that's struggling would you hire Romney to infuse it with money and manage a turn around or a teacher? Efforts of venture capitalists like Romney don't always work. Sometimes the company will fail. Sometimes no matter how hard the teacher works with an individual student, he or she is still going to get failing grade. As companies like Staples and Sports Authority grew and hired thousands more people, those workers would likely disagree with you. They owe their jobs to Romney, not to the teacher.

Staples put alot of smaller operations out of business. They had workers and owners too. What was the real NET job creation of a Staples coming into existence?

Teachers are more important than venture/vulture capitalists.