There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

[Flash]

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?

If you think we are polluting the air is "robbing" you of something then you should have done what I did.

I got a BS, MS and PE in Environmental Engineering and had a 30 year career cleaning up pollution that was generated by corporations. My specialty was air pollution although I did a lot nuclear.

That way you wouldn't sound like a whiny little Moon Bat when you post your garbage.

 

[night_son]

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!

This is shockingly apathetic, even nihilistic and incorrect. Income equality exists only for lack of individual personal effort. Meaning, so what if one applies for a job and never hears back or gets the interview but not the job? One then continues to apply to several jobs every damned day, improve his or her resume, networks with job seekers in one's field . . . until one is successful in getting the desired job, that's what. Lack of personal effort and resting on one's laurels guarantees you, as an American from any station in life, you will not succeed. On the other hand, put in whatever level of hard work and personal effort is required to get where you want to go financially, and you'll get there or come damn close.

No, employers do not "got you by the balls". What a naïve and self-pitying statement. As an employee in any field you are free to walk off the job at any time. You're not chained to your desk or cubicle or packaging machine, although I'd recommend you have a new career prospect before cutting out. In America there is no end to the possibilities of financially and professionally bettering yourself, but it takes work; years of relentless hard work.

Too many punk momma-boys these days think they are entitled to the best jobs right out of school; high school or college. Our economy has never worked that way, although exceptions do exist, more often than not you've got to start low and work your way up. For fuck's sake when I went into the Army in 1991 I was making about $600 per month! My advice to any new generation entrant into the workforce would be to put your shoulder to the wheel, keep your mouth shut and work your ass off for a couple of years. Hate your first job? Take classes at community college while working, work a second job, all the while applying for better ones. Hell, you might even have to relocate to land that dream job. So do it!

Point is, in America, if you are willing to improve your skills, education and/or simply work your ass off and constantly keep an eye out for better opportunities, you will succeed, you will go far. Or, you can sit on your ass feeling sorry for yourself, pitying your status at birth and hate society for "keeping you down" and never get very far at all. And brother, that's squarely on your shoulders alone. Suck it up.

 

[jc456]

there never was. the fact that they use non equivalent jobs to beat the drum was known for years. they think they're clever, but they are not. thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

You have government adding hundreds of billions in healthcare demand while doing nothing to add to supply.

Gee, I wonder why prices are going up?

Change the word "healthcare" to "college" and you'll understand the other "crisis" in America today.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Oh BULLSHIT.

If the reader doubt my analysis of Dekster's post, please read the following link:

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/dodd-frank-act

I'm really sick and tire of the ignorance and echoing of lies by the self proclaimed conservatives.

 

[toobfreak]

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!

This is shockingly apathetic, even nihilistic and incorrect. Income equality exists only for lack of individual personal effort. Meaning, so what if one applies for a job and never hears back or gets the interview but not the job? One then continues to apply to several jobs every damned day, improve his or her resume, networks with job seekers in one's field . . . until one is successful in getting the desired job, that's what. Lack of personal effort and resting on one's laurels guarantees you, as an American from any station in life, you will not succeed. On the other hand, put in whatever level of hard work and personal effort is required to get where you want to go financially, and you'll get there or come damn close.

No, employers do not "got you by the balls". What a naïve and self-pitying statement. As an employee in any field you are free to walk off the job at any time. You're not chained to your desk or cubicle or packaging machine, although I'd recommend you have a new career prospect before cutting out. In America there is no end to the possibilities of financially and professionally bettering yourself, but it takes work; years of relentless hard work.

Too many punk momma-boys these days think they are entitled to the best jobs right out of school; high school or college. Our economy has never worked that way, although exceptions do exist, more often than not you've got to start low and work your way up. For fuck's sake when I went into the Army in 1991 I was making about $600 per month! My advice to any new generation entrant into the workforce would be to put your shoulder to the wheel, keep your mouth shut and work your ass off for a couple of years. Hate your first job? Take classes at community college while working, work a second job, all the while applying for better ones. Hell, you might even have to relocate to land that dream job. So do it!

Point is, in America, if you are willing to improve your skills, education and/or simply work your ass off and constantly keep an eye out for better opportunities, you will succeed, you will go far. Or, you can sit on your ass feeling sorry for yourself, pitying your status at birth and hate society for "keeping you down" and never get very far at all. And brother, that's squarely on your shoulders alone. Suck it up.

Dream on. You are successfully brainwashed.

 

[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.

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...

Stop being such a tool. Back before Reagan/Bush let them in to stay, they only picked fruit. That was fine. But then they came and started doing jobs Americans would do. This saved rich people billions of dollars and cost the American middle class billions of dollars, stupid

And you said we couldn't afford to pay union wages, so you sent manufacturing jobs to Mexico. This benefitted the rich and cost the American middle class too. You demonized labor. You supported sending our best paying jobs out of the country, fuckers.

Your idiotic reply tells me you are not a deep thinker. You don't get it. Stupid fuck. Piss on you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. “… there is the work ethic: if a child does not understand that accomplishment is based on performance, doom is nearby…”




The most succinct statement from the Liberal/Democrat perspective is that of former Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley: “ We try and discourage people from self help."


When Liberalism did away with personal responsibility…..the die was cast.





“The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues.

By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored,” Bell wrote. Out went the Protestant ethic’s prudence, thrift, temperance, self-discipline, and deferral of gratification. Weakened along with all these virtues that made up the American work ethic was Americans’ belief in the value of work itself. Along with “turning on” and “tuning in,” the sixties protesters also “dropped out.” As the editor of the 1973 American Work Ethic noted, “affluence, hedonism and radicalism” were turning many Americans away from work and the pursuit of career advancement…”
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic?



Why work at all, or save, for that matter, if government promised to coddle you from cradle to grave????
How could the elimination of the work ethic not result in economic inequality???

Yep people just got lazy. has nothing to do with the GOP cutting taxes on the rich and opportunity for everyone else the last 35 years dumbass Dupe. How's the weather in Russia?

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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You cited:
“Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America.

I agree there is a lot of trufh to that.
However, how do innocent children get “good parenting” if their parent(s) are poor, uneducated, abusive, and live in run down violent neighborhoods?

Maybe a government can help those poor children (or their children) become good parents eventually?

Read about brain surgeon Ben Carson's mother.....illiterate with a third grade education.


Adventist Review Online | Sonya Carson, Ben Carson’s Mother, Passes at 88

Stop looking for excuses.

 

[rightwinger]

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

You have government adding hundreds of billions in healthcare demand while doing nothing to add to supply.

Gee, I wonder why prices are going up?

Change the word "healthcare" to "college" and you'll understand the other "crisis" in America today.

Do you think the government was making more sick people or just allowing more sick people able to be treated?

I am all for more doctors.....let’s hire more

 

[PoliticalChic]

you have yet to learn that I am never wrong.

No wonder many people hate conservatives. Idiots like you give them a bad name.

"Think where man's glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends."
- William Butler Yeats



And having you as an adversary is most heartening....you fool.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

What opportunities, please be specific..


.

Cheap college and training, grants- you name it they get cut. No sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share....

how do I benefit from cheap college grants?

Now be specific what is in it for ME, that opportunities are lost?


I will tell you zip/nothing/Nadda

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Can't you read, you moron????


There is no such class as 'rich.'


Who are the ‘Top 1%,” so reviled by the class warriors?

Alec Monopoly's Graffiti Celebrity Portraits And Monopoly Man Are A Hit With The Rich And Famous


No….not that

1. If the Occupy Wall Street protests are aiming to take down the "1 percent" of Americans who control the increasingly largest chunk of our nation's wealth, perhaps they need to redirect their efforts to somewhere other than Wall Street.
2. According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.
3. The biggest single group of professionals in the top one percent is actually doctors, who make up 16 percent of that subset.
4. Executives and managers outside of finance make up 31% of the total, but Lapin didn't break them down by industry.
5. David Carr of The New York Times would also like to offer up his bosses as targets for the mass uprising, pointing out in his column today that media executives are some of the worst offenders when it comes to CEOs who reap multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes by slashing budgets and laying off rank-and-file workers. Go ahead and add them to the list.
6. So those who want to direct their anger at the winners in the income inequality sweepstakes might want to look beyond the lower of half of Manhattan. There's plenty of other folks closer to home that you might want to have a word with. Where Does the Top 1% Really Work?
7. Lawyers make up 9 percent. The 1 Percent Are Not All Wall Streeters—They're the Bosses
8. To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!

The study revealed that general, or nonpolice, employees in Westchester average $76,652 in annual salary while county police in Westchester average $184,865.

The highest-paid employee in Westchester County was police officer Wayne Mullaney, who made $319,628 between April 2013 and March 2014, the report said.

The highest-paid local government employee was Charles E. Ewald, a jail warden who was paid $414,527 by Suffolk County.

In all, 1,803 local government employees cleared more money between than Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made $179,000, according to the report.
Westchester Leads NY In Salaries For County Workers, Police





I guess you're just too darn old to learn......the indoctrination is indelible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Let's check:


Poverty is no home, no heat, no food.

But, according to the Liberal mentality, poverty is having a smaller flat screen TV than you have, or one bedroom less in their home…..maybe not as shiny hubcaps on their cars.



Check this out:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America




Sooo….Democrat voter…..feel like a sucker?




Next time, remember to take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[francoHFW]

hell a few months ago I had to teach you a "Teacher" that america was founded by liberal christian socialist and I am just a street smart guy from Chicago.

Well-known actually. Socialists of that time. The term was so vague didn't mean much. Definitely liberal and Christian. A lot of deists... The French enlightenment guys.

Once again they founded a socialist colony in America and it DIDNT WORK

A socialist society that didn't work? I'm shocked!!!

Wait ... no I'm not.

What socialist society in America are you talkin about you idiots? The kind of socialism Bernie Sanders and Warren and everybody else wants has not ever been a failure.

You haven't a clue what socialism is, what Sanders or Warren intend, and not a fucking clue what others want. All you know for certain is that you're a fucking IDIOT, you want "free" stuff, and you don't care who is made to pay for it or how much damage you do to this country.

Now STFU or go play with the other children on the coloring book forum, Comrade MORON.

Who founded a socialist colony in America, dingbat?

 

[francoHFW]

Well-known actually. Socialists of that time. The term was so vague didn't mean much. Definitely liberal and Christian. A lot of deists... The French enlightenment guys.

Once again they founded a socialist colony in America and it DIDNT WORK

A socialist society that didn't work? I'm shocked!!!

Wait ... no I'm not.

What socialist society in America are you talkin about you idiots? The kind of socialism Bernie Sanders and Warren and everybody else wants has not ever been a failure.

You haven't a clue what socialism is, what Sanders or Warren intend, and not a fucking clue what others want. All you know for certain is that you're a fucking IDIOT, you want "free" stuff, and you don't care who is made to pay for it or how much damage you do to this country.

Now STFU or go play with the other children on the coloring book forum, Comrade MORON.

The Commie Bernie and Indian Princess Warren brand of socialism can be summed up in only two words:

Free stuff!

Too bad the idiots don't have a clue as to the damage paying for all that free stuff will do to the economy.

how does every other rich country in the world manage it when we the richest country in the world can't? The scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?