There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.
 
Has no one mentioned to the Democrats that "skill inequality" is largely responsible for "income inequality"?

It seems not judging by their endless whining. Why not?
 
These idiot greedy Moon Bats in this country think there is massive income inequality if you have a 75 inch TV and they only have a 47 inch.
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.


How about you flesh that post out, and state what you believe should be done....and why.
 
Has no one mentioned to the Democrats that "skill inequality" is largely responsible for "income inequality"?

It seems not judging by their endless whining. Why not?


Well.....that might work against their 'cradle to grave' bumper sticker promises.
 
5. By instructing those susceptible to Liberal indoctrination, and that includes those who believe that Liberals/Democrat intend on helping minorities advance, they would not only stop educating their children, but would see reading and books as an enemy….with these results:




Both Liberal welfare policies and Liberal propaganda ('the legacy of slavery) have persuaded large segments of the black population that they need not take the steps that lead out of poverty......rather, they cannot....and only big government programs will save them.


Here is the amazing consequence of half a century of indoctrination:


Books.jpg

Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes. But the most surprising finding is that the top quintile of black homes reported having fewer books (69) than the bottom quintile of white homes (71).

Report: Negligent Parenting Hurts Black Students' Performance

The statistics are from the National Center For Education Statistics.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education



"75% of black California boys don’t meet state reading standards"
75% of black California boys don’t meet state reading standards



"It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived.


 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.


You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.
 
There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

Utter rubbish once again, just as with your claim that poverty didn't exist.

Not only does income inequality exist, it is a functional part of a capitalistic system! To claim otherwise is to blind yourself to a hundred reasons why one person moves "up the ladder" while another one with equal skills, experience and ability does not. There are so many gimmicks rigged into our system which rewards one person for playing within a corrupt system while excluding others because they either do not or cannot.

I won't even begin to try to list all the factors that go into whether you even get an interview, much less hired, promoted, offered an opportunity, equal or fair pay because the list is so long. Employers got you by the balls and you are either screwed over or get ahead via corruption, insider friends, or the like. Americans could very well be the most overworked and underpaid people in the 1st World.

I'll leave it to the reader to cogitate the problem and decide for themselves, but I would guess that less than 10% of ouyr population even finds work not only in something they WANT to do and like, but which is even a good utilization of their best talents!
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.


You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

So you have just said there is income inequality. Thanks.
 
There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

Utter rubbish once again, just as with your claim that poverty didn't exist.

Not only does income inequality exist, it is a functional part of a capitalistic system! To claim otherwise is to blind yourself to a hundred reasons why one person moves "up the ladder" while another one with equal skills, experience and ability does not. There are so many gimmicks rigged into our system which rewards one person for playing within a corrupt system while excluding others because they either do not or cannot.

I won't even begin to try to list all the factors that go into whether you even get an interview, much less hired, promoted, offered an opportunity, equal or fair pay because the list is so long. Employers got you by the balls and you are either screwed over or get ahead via corruption, insider friends, or the like. Americans could very well be the most overworked and underpaid people in the 1st World.

I'll leave it to the reader to cogitate the problem and decide for themselves, but I would guess that less than 10% of ouyr population even finds work not only in something they WANT to do and like, but which is even a good utilization of their best talents!



I see you have read several of my threads, but it is an indictment of your ability that you have yet to learn that I am never wrong.


1. There is no real poverty in this nation.
No starvation, no Dickensian poor houses, no slavery or any of the other corollaries of real poverty.
There are dunces who have been sucked into the Liberal propaganda.....
.....raise your paw.


2. "To claim otherwise is to blind yourself to a hundred reasons why one person moves "up the ladder" while another one with equal skills, experience and ability does not."
Name a few.

If you can't....you remain our best source of greenhouse gases.


3. "I won't even begin to try..."
Good decision!


4. "....you are either screwed over or get ahead via corruption, insider friends, or the like. Americans could very well be the most overworked and underpaid people in the 1st World."
Gee.....that must be why we can hardly keep the rest of the world from coming here, huh?......you moron.

From your absurd post, one must conclude that you are a compendium of bad habits and life choices, and you look like something I'd draw with my left hand.
True?



5. BTW....stay tuned for my post on the death of the work ethic....a few posts hence.
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.


You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

So you have just said there is income inequality. Thanks.


Thievery is all about taking other people's stuff to make things more "equal".

Using the filthy oppressive government to facilitate the thievery is still stealing.
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.


You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

So you have just said there is income inequality. Thanks.


Either you merely noted the title of the thread, or you've taken another opportunity to miss the point.


Why must I explain everything to the ....'slow'?



If not for parenting inequality, there'd be no discussion of income inequality.


Get it now?
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.


You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

So you have just said there is income inequality. Thanks.


Thievery is all about taking other people's stuff to make things more "equal".

Using the filthy oppressive government to facilitate the thievery is still stealing.



That's a darn good definition for socialism.
 
6. O’Reilly continues with his explanation of inequality…..


“Now the environment. If the home is full of conflict, loud noise, unpredictable behavior by one parent or both, the young child may not develop intellectual skills and will likely be unsteady and insecure.


… there is the work ethic: if a child does not understand that accomplishment is based on performance, doom is nearby. Hard work must be taught, it is not inherited or casually acquired. The word “hard” is there for a reason.
Many parents are irresponsible, lazy, apathetic and self-absorbed. They intoxicate themselves in front of their children, they use inappropriate language the kid will also use, they avoid attention-giving to their precious offspring.


And then there are parents who abandon their children - surely reserving a prime spot for themselves in hell.


As a high school teacher in the 1970’s, I dealt with derelict parents and they always had a basket full of excuses. But they all had one thing in common: their gratification was more important than the success of the child. Educators, no matter how skilled, usually cannot overcome bad home environments.”
Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




QED…..sans parenting inequality, we wouldn’t be talking about income inequality.
 
In a technical sense, you're correct. I think the bigger point is that there will always be a gap between those who excel and those who do not. You see this gap in academics and in sports. It's always been there and always will be there. Some people study harder and learn more quickly than others--that's just the natural order of things. Similarly, some athletes are more talented and dedicated than others--that's just how it is. Well, you have the same thing in the realm of economic life.
 
The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.
Bs. For example, back before corporations had the option to move their plants to Mexico, labor could organize and demand a fair wage.

A middle class emerged. But the rich caught back. Slowly from the late 70s to now the rich have been getting richer with their economic policies and the middle class has disappeared

Nafta, invented by bush and fully supported by republicans

Jobs Americans won’t do saved the rich billions and cost the middle class billions

Buying cheap shit from China.

Tax breaks for the rich

Rising healthcare costs

Cuts to social programs.

The rich are doing great. Maga
 
In a technical sense, you're correct. I think the bigger point is that there will always be a gap between those who excel and those who do not. You see this gap in academics and in sports. It's always been there and always will be there. Some people study harder and learn more quickly than others--that's just the natural order of things. Similarly, some athletes are more talented and dedicated than others--that's just how it is. Well, you have the same thing in the realm of economic life.


Here's the point, mikey...…..sans parenting inequality, we wouldn’t be talking about income inequality.


"You see this gap in academics and in sports."

The unspoken assumption is that differences in wealth are to be considered bad, dangerous, anxiety causing.....but what is missed it that people choose to do what they wish to in America.

There is no real poverty, so the choice is not one of living or dying.

"Specialty choice trends among women remained consistent in 2015. Women make up a larger percentage of residents in:


Female doctors, it appears, don't necessarily choose their specialty with remuneration in mind......they have lots of reason other than money for the choices.


That is the case in every endeavor.

In America, status, free time, danger, difficulty, personal characteristics and desires......

Income inequality is a chimera, based on pushing the idea of victimology.
 
Regan started the inequality , Bush Jr, expanded it and now with Tramp the income inequality is even worst than ever.
 

Forum List

Back
Top