Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons
Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons
Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons
Why would you care who owns shit, how much someone makes or doesn't make is none of your fucking business nor is it the federal governmentsWhy are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons
Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot
From an economics stand point it makes a big difference. If there was no government and no taxation to provide economic balance we would be in very big trouble. There a reason why it's called trickle down and not waterfall. Show me an unregulated untaxed system what works more effectively in our modern societyWhy would you care who owns shit, how much someone makes or doesn't make is none of your fucking business nor is it the federal governmentsWhy are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons
Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot
Not true. Giving all of your money away would not help. Conditions need to change.No, really, you can't. Because if you thought it was wrong - you would give all of your money to those in low or no income situations. Are you so stupid that you cannot understand this or are you such a partisan hack that you have to pretend like this is too difficult to understand?You can have money and still think inequality is wrong. Are you so thick that you cannot understand this?So you're saying you are so insanely stupid that you don't see the glaring insanity of a man making $26 million per movie (which equates to $1 million per line) crying about "wealth inequality"?!?So you're saying someone has to be poor to talk about wealth inequality?
Even for you, that's 'effin retarded.
I would say that even for you, that's 'effin retarded except that there appears to be no end to your stupidity.
Not if you have money.Complaining about wealth inequality? Sounds like envy…And in doing so one would do nothing to fix the systemic problem that exists.No, really, you can't. Because if you thought it was wrong - you would give all of your money to those in low or no income situations. Are you so stupid that you cannot understand this or are you such a partisan hack that you have to pretend like this is too difficult to understand?You can have money and still think inequality is wrong. Are you so thick that you cannot understand this?So you're saying you are so insanely stupid that you don't see the glaring insanity of a man making $26 million per movie (which equates to $1 million per line) crying about "wealth inequality"?!?So you're saying someone has to be poor to talk about wealth inequality?
Even for you, that's 'effin retarded.
I would say that even for you, that's 'effin retarded except that there appears to be no end to your stupidity.
Damen and people like him use their voice and power to promote the ideology they believe in. To support officials they feel will institute change where they feel there should be change. If he feels that wealth inequality is a problem then he will likely push for somebody that will vote for higher taxes on the top earners. If this happens then I don't imagine he would have a problem with it. He does a ton of personal charity work. Giving away all his money is a cop out proposal on your part and you know it.
No, really, it's not. Because the true free market is completely flawless. You know why? Choice. Options. If Acme Inc. is full of unethical criminals, I can choose not to do business with them. When unethical criminals like Barack Obama and Hitlery Clinton occupy Washington - they impact my life and I can't choose to not let them. They operate at the barrel of a gun. The free market does not.
So it is your contention that Social Security creates "wealth inequality"?So nobody is distributing Social Security monies?
Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.
Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot
Wait a second...I thought the official progressive position was that taxation was critical to run the government that was so critical for survival. Now you're admitting that taxation is used to punish successful people and "balance" income?From an economics stand point it makes a big difference. If there was no government and no taxation to provide economic balance we would be in very big trouble. There a reason why it's called trickle down and not waterfall. Show me an unregulated untaxed system what works more effectively in our modern society
If hypocrite asshole like Matt Damon gave away all of their money, that would "change the conditions", genius.Not true. Giving all of your money away would not help. Conditions need to change.
Yeah...if you have money it sounds like vintage progressive hypocrisy and trying to pull the ladder up behind you to ensure you maintain all wealth.Not if you have money.Complaining about wealth inequality? Sounds like envy…
It would make very little difference. The conditions causing this inequality have to change.If hypocrite asshole like Matt Damon gave away all of their money, that would "change the conditions", genius.Not true. Giving all of your money away would not help. Conditions need to change.
Wow, you really think you are winning this debate, never mind the multiple comments from multiple posters calling your ideas idiotic and the fact that nobody has supported your position at all. You can't even recall the discussion correctly. You play word games over the definition of distribute which has nothing to do with the conversation. I gave you an example to put it into context that I thought your simple mind would understand, but I guess not. I can't fix stupid so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. You didn't even make it to the table on this arguement. Back to JV with ya.Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.
Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot
You can't figure out which way is up because you can't defend your irrational position. There is no such thing as "wealth inequality". Everyone has unlimited opportunity to earn unlimited income. Some capitalize on those unlimited opportunities, some don't.
Now I need to explain taxation to you? Jesus. Taxation funds government programs that provide security infrastructure and support for our vets, children, poor, elderly and all citizens as a whole. Funds are collected in a way to try and somewhat balance the economic scales and incentivize smart, healthy and proactive spending. The programs fill a need that profit driven companies can't fill as their purposes is to support the education, security, and well being of our citizens.Wait a second...I thought the official progressive position was that taxation was critical to run the government that was so critical for survival. Now you're admitting that taxation is used to punish successful people and "balance" income?From an economics stand point it makes a big difference. If there was no government and no taxation to provide economic balance we would be in very big trouble. There a reason why it's called trickle down and not waterfall. Show me an unregulated untaxed system what works more effectively in our modern society
I bet your fellow progressives are wishing you'd shit the fuck up already. The more you talk, the more you expose the idiocy of the ideology.
Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist?Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons
The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.Liberals do not oppose personal wealth
They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment
Bwahahahaha! Exactly, junior. Run away once you've painted yourself into a corner. You proclaim that distribution doesn't exist and doesn't need to for "wealth inequality" and then you turn around and your example is of a "product supply distributor". Any why? Because you're bizarre and immature belief of "wealth inequality" could only exist with someone distributing wealth. If there isn't a centralized body distributing wealth and doing so unfairly, then "wealth inequality" cannot possibly exist. And you know it. Which is why you can't give an accurate analogy that doesn't include a "distributor".Wow, you really think you are winning this debate, never mind the multiple comments from multiple posters calling your ideas idiotic and the fact that nobody has supported your position at all. You can't even recall the discussion correctly. You play word games over the definition of distribute which has nothing to do with the conversation. I gave you an example to put it into context that I thought your simple mind would understand, but I guess not. I can't fix stupid so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. You didn't even make it to the table on this arguement. Back to JV with ya.Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.
Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot
You can't figure out which way is up because you can't defend your irrational position. There is no such thing as "wealth inequality". Everyone has unlimited opportunity to earn unlimited income. Some capitalize on those unlimited opportunities, some don't.
