There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

[Flash]

[. At least they got insurance, millions or poor people didn't under obamacare.

Welfare queens and Illegals got subsidies and it screwed the hell out of the paying cosumers in the form of higher premiums, higher co payments and higher deductibles.

That is the trouble with government interference. It always screws up everything.

The government needs to get out of the business of regulating health care and providing a welfare entitlement to health care.

I trust a company trying to provide quality health care at a competitive price competing for my business far more than I trust a stupid non caring bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician, elected by special interest groups, giving it to me for "free".

Health care should not be an entitlement. You pay your health care bills and I will pay mine. Leave the government out of it.

 

[Dekster]

None of that really seems functional to me. I am more practical. For instance, to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals, not giving insurance companies checks to keep perpetuating the same current payola.

And then everything will operate efficiently, in our best interests, and FREEEE!!!

I tell ya, there is nothing more naive than a big gov't leftard.

Nothing in my post said anything to indicate that private hospitals and insurance could not exist. There is nothing more greedy than a big gov't righttard who is too chickenshit scared about introducing competition into the marketplace.

So you didn't say "...to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals...?"

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The Democratic party solution is forcefully taking away money from people to give it to others.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said.......Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

 

[SAYIT]

The Democratic party solution is forcefully taking away money from people to give it to others.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said.......Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

As A.F. Tytler said … A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.

 

[SAYIT]

And then everything will operate efficiently, in our best interests, and FREEEE!!!

I tell ya, there is nothing more naive than a big gov't leftard.

Nothing in my post said anything to indicate that private hospitals and insurance could not exist. There is nothing more greedy than a big gov't righttard who is too chickenshit scared about introducing competition into the marketplace.

So you didn't say "...to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals...?"

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

 

[Dekster]

Nothing in my post said anything to indicate that private hospitals and insurance could not exist. There is nothing more greedy than a big gov't righttard who is too chickenshit scared about introducing competition into the marketplace.

So you didn't say "...to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals...?"

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Most countries that have universal care have a combination of public and private healthcare. That isn't planting flowers. That is just reality.

 

[SAYIT]

So you didn't say "...to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals...?"

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Most countries that have universal care have a combination of public and private healthcare. That isn't planting flowers. That is just reality.

Universal healthcare - whatever you mean by that - is not necessarily nationalized as you proffered, Comrade D, and private alternatives are only for the wealthy in most of those countries.

The problem remains that having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com leaves you large on slogans and small on knowledge but here's a clue: big, greasy, corrupt central gov't is not the way to inject "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure." In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Here, in America, there is no perennial class of 'the rich.'

"...economic mobility. About 60 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile ten years later. During the same decade, almost 40 percent of the richest households fell to a lower quintile. This is a nation where you can rise or fall. It is a nation where you can climb the economic ladder based not on who you are born to, or what class you are born into, but based on your talents, your passion, your perseverance, and the content of your character." https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_05_Imprimis.pdf


You prove that there is a perennial group of stupid folks.......are you their spokesperson?

What country are you posting from?

Huh? What did you just write? The rich have gotten richer and the middle class has gotten poorer. Why? The rich waged war on us and you defended them every step. Not because you are rich but because you have lottery mentality. In other words rather than wanting social security and medicare, which you are going to need, you sit around and worry about how much taxes you pay if you ever struck it rich.

But 99% of you won't strike it rich and you'll be stuck poor in your 60's. Unable to retire because you didn't save enough. Why? Because you didn't make enough.

The rich now make all the money. That's why they pay all the taxes.

Hey, I'm still in the upper middle class so screw all of you. If voters who are poorer than me vote with you or don't show up at all? Fuck em! Right?

 

[sealybobo]

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

If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

No. If I don't like it I should vote to change it. I don't have to move anywhere. I'm doing great. Your way, our way, either way America has always been great for me. Only one decade sucked and that was the BUSH decade. His dad sucked too. I was graduating college and his economy SUCKED. It was the Reagan dot com bubble coming to an end. LOL

 

[Dekster]

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Most countries that have universal care have a combination of public and private healthcare. That isn't planting flowers. That is just reality.

Universal healthcare is not necessarily nationalized as you proffered, Comrade D, and private alternatives are only for the wealthy in most of those countries.

The problem remains that having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com leaves you large on slogans and small on knowledge but here's a clue: big, greasy, corrupt central gov't is not the way to inject "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure." In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

National healthcare is national healthcare no matter how much you want to try to play semantics.

 

[rightwinger]

The Democratic party solution is forcefully taking away money from people to give it to others.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said.......Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society

As A.F. Tytler said … A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.

Seems odd it has never happened

 

[rightwinger]

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

If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

No. If I don't like it I should vote to change it. I don't have to move anywhere. I'm doing great. Your way, our way, either way America has always been great for me. Only one decade sucked and that was the BUSH decade. His dad sucked too. I was graduating college and his economy SUCKED. It was the Reagan dot com bubble coming to an end. LOL

There was no dot.com under Reagan

 

[SAYIT]

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Most countries that have universal care have a combination of public and private healthcare. That isn't planting flowers. That is just reality.

Universal healthcare - whatever you mean by that - is not necessarily nationalized as you proffered, Comrade D, and private alternatives are only for the wealthy in most of those countries.

The problem remains that having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com leaves you large on slogans and small on knowledge but here's a clue: big, greasy, corrupt central gov't is not the way to inject "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure." In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

National healthcare is national healthcare no matter how much you want to try to play semantics.

So first you say it's "nationalized healthcare," then it's "universal," and now it's "national."
And you say I'm the one playing semantics, Comrade D?

The bottom line remains that big, greasy, corrupt central gov't is not the way to inject "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure." In fact, it's exactly the opposite

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing in my post said anything to indicate that private hospitals and insurance could not exist. There is nothing more greedy than a big gov't righttard who is too chickenshit scared about introducing competition into the marketplace.

So you didn't say "...to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals...?"

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Free markets are doing nothing to drive down the price of healthcare

 

[sealybobo]

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

If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

No. If I don't like it I should vote to change it. I don't have to move anywhere. I'm doing great. Your way, our way, either way America has always been great for me. Only one decade sucked and that was the BUSH decade. His dad sucked too. I was graduating college and his economy SUCKED. It was the Reagan dot com bubble coming to an end. LOL

There was no dot.com under Reagan

I know I was just kidding. Everyone talks about Clinton was lucky he had a dot com boom. Well Reagan spent his way out of his recession. So what? Right? Clinton didn't fuck up a good thing

Morgan Stanley sees global recession 'in three quarters' if Trump escalates trade war

This Trade War Could Start A Recession

Donald Trump’s war on cars is pushing the US closer to a recession

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

“Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. - Seriously hope you run that as the GOP campaign slogan...

A inhertiance tax dodging guy telling people your parents are the reason you are poor, so blame mom...

 

[SAYIT]

So you didn't say "...to me nationalized healthcare means buying up the damn hospitals...?"

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

I didn't say take the damn hospitals. There is no higher walled garden than medical in most places. Injecting competition into the market, including buying up hospitals, puts downward pressure on pricing and provides the government a vehicle to provide care for the poor and indigent more effectively. There are few companies that can run hospitals into the ground faster than for-profits like Lifepoint that specializes in acquiring hospitals in areas where there is zero competition.

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Free markets are doing nothing to drive down the price of healthcare

And injecting big, greasy, corrupt central gov't control over our healthcare will?
I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Here, in America, there is no perennial class of 'the rich.'

"...economic mobility. About 60 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile ten years later. During the same decade, almost 40 percent of the richest households fell to a lower quintile. This is a nation where you can rise or fall. It is a nation where you can climb the economic ladder based not on who you are born to, or what class you are born into, but based on your talents, your passion, your perseverance, and the content of your character." https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_05_Imprimis.pdf


You prove that there is a perennial group of stupid folks.......are you their spokesperson?

What country are you posting from?

In the United States, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for more than 30 years.

30 years? You mean since Reagan?

Started letting illegals stay, started sending high paying manufacturing jobs overseas, NAFTA, buying from Walmart/China, breaking unions........

And you wonder how come the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer? And you supported it.

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

While polluting the Air is not robbing everyone else?

 

[CowboyTed]

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

Here, in America, there is no perennial class of 'the rich.'

"...economic mobility. About 60 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile ten years later. During the same decade, almost 40 percent of the richest households fell to a lower quintile. This is a nation where you can rise or fall. It is a nation where you can climb the economic ladder based not on who you are born to, or what class you are born into, but based on your talents, your passion, your perseverance, and the content of your character." https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_05_Imprimis.pdf


You prove that there is a perennial group of stupid folks.......are you their spokesperson?

What country are you posting from?

In the United States, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for more than 30 years.

30 years? You mean since Reagan?

Started letting illegals stay, started sending high paying manufacturing jobs overseas, NAFTA, buying from Walmart/China, breaking unions........

And you wonder how come the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer? And you supported it.

So I get... Middle Class suffered because Mexicans picked Strawberries... There was so many Middle Class Strawberry picking jobs before...

This is so full of horseshit it is hard to keep a straight face...