Unequal distribution of wealth

[Big Fitz]

Elevating NEED above liberty and productivity leads to a downward spiral for everyone.

It's moralizing the acceptance of slavery. The workers must provide for the lazy and indigent bastards who then live a subsidized life they feel entitled to.

 

[mdn2000]

Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.

When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?

And again... someone's else's nest egg amount is your business why??

Do you not have the freedom to earn all the money you can and accumulate all the wealth you can??

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... if you get 100X what you are worth, good for you.. if you get half of what you are worth, too bad too sad... either way it is up to you

You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.

You know, I know you cant help it, you believe what you were taught, what you believe was true and did apply in the 18th and 19th century were your ideas originated. Your idea originated in Germany, France, by a Jew of all people. Back in 18th century Europe people were exploited.

Marxism was based on one persons viewpoint, maybe two, Engels and Karl Marx, based on what they saw, it was flawed then and is even more flawed in a different time and world which is where we are today.

 

[mdn2000]

Yes. That is the basic conflict.

Some of use believe people should be able to keep what they have earned or been voluntarily bequeathed.

Others would rather use unfettered government power to take away from some for their own benefit.

The moral systems upon which each side is based are Quite Different.

Then how about we use that model?

Take away more from the poor in this country..and give it to the poorer in other countries. Its the same principal. My guess the poor in this country would be pisses as hell if anything was taken away from them.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE IT TO SPARE! Unlike someone with a quarter million dollars a year whining and bitching about a 10% rise in their marginal tax rate!

Spoiled rotten rich bastards!

You have no idea of the expense in a business. Some contracts after the expense of everything the government has imposed and regulated onto someone are lucky to make 1% 3% on a ten million dollar contract. Takes a lot of hard work with lots of stress to make a million dollars under the conditions imposed on us.

Marxist see things different

 

[JBeukema]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

People who think the interstate highways are 'completed' has never driven across the country on one.

 

[JBeukema]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

Of course, in the real world, if you actually take the time to look at the budgets of local government, you'll find that these things listed comprise well over 90% of said budgets. But, again, the wingnut wants to do anything and everything to avoid the real world.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

And now, not only does the wingnut leave out major portions of what was said, he doesn't even address the reality that these things that he claims were finished decades ago need constant maintenence and upgrading. But let's look at what he left out. The military plus Social Security and Medicare is roughly 85% of federal spending. Why would the wingnut leave these things out? Because, obviously, the wingnut does not want to address or deal with the real world.

All the wingnut wants to do is endlessly repeat the spoon fed dogma in the hope that the audience will be swayed by repetition and the hate-filled nature of the rhetoric alone.

That's why we call them wingnuts.

police and fire...

 

[JBeukema]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

And the public school system is the worst in the world which proves no matter how much money you throw at a problem the unions will fuck it up for you.

You've an objection to collective bargaining?

What do you against the unions? Are they too greedy? Oh, but you love the CEOs. And the Union's greed will meet with the boss's greed and, through the miracle of capitalism, in the end, everyone will benefit from their -c-l-a-s-s- -s-t-r-u-g-g-l-e- competition

 

[syrenn]

Why do you hate the government our founders left us?

Why do you not understand the government the founders left us?

Explain the government the founders left us and how they treated corporations.

They left us a country of personal responsibility, and one of less government involvement. Try and remember that little incident over unfair taxation that started this country. They created a country where you are rewarder for YOUR hard work and labor, and the ability to enjoy the fruits of you labor.

They say nothing about corporations.

 

[JBeukema]

Try and remember that little incident over unfair taxation that started this country.

They did nothing over 'unfair taxation'. They were mad about taxation without representation. With today's 'one dollar, one vote' system, the people complaining have nothing to worry about.

They say nothing about corporations.

Nor about Sputnik...

 

[Bfgrn]

Why do you not understand the government the founders left us?

Explain the government the founders left us and how they treated corporations.

They left us a country of personal responsibility, and one of less government involvement. Try and remember that little incident over unfair taxation that started this country. They created a country where you are rewarder for YOUR hard work and labor, and the ability to enjoy the fruits of you labor.

They say nothing about corporations.

That little incident over unfair taxation, was not about colonists paying a tax. It was a protest over a corporation (British East India Company) being given huge corporate tax cuts. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

You're right, 'they' say nothing about corporations.

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

That sounds nothing like the corporations of today...OR America...

 

[JBeukema]

That, is not about us, it is about the Totalitarian Regimes that have no respect for the lives of their own citizens.

We all live in the same world, my friend.

Some would argue that they who do nothing stand beside those who do evil.

Maybe we should bring DDT back? What do you say? Should we send in the Marines? If we do, will we support them? Should we go back to Somalia? I'm with you. Some of us try to make a difference every day JB. There is much Evil to overcome.

Simply soaking everything- and everyone- in DDT over and again will not solve the problem.

Some regions simply can't support a population right now. I condemn as cruel anyone who brings a child into that. On the global scale, there are major population centers that can't be sustained, some regions that have no food and water, and some regions that, despite their bounty, or barely populated.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if humans would stop killing and hating eachother, but that's where religion enters the picture.

Within our own socialist sanctuary that we enjoy in this country, things might look alright and it might seem so grave to argue such petty things, but in the greater world around us, nothing has changed. Things are no done across the borders of nation-states and coupled with jingoism and a false sense of patriotism as they once were, but while the draperies have changed, what's going on behind the charade is the same. The rich exploit the poor and the greater stride across the corpses of the weak in imported designer shoes to buy a shiny new ipod built by a 10-year old who hasn't been allowed the factory premises in months lest he forfeit all the pay the still haven't given him.

And it's been going on since before they called it 'capitalism' and wrapping it up in red, white, and blue.

 

[mudwhistle]

In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

But there is no denying that we currently have an unequal distribution of available wealth that is only getting worse. What we are looking at is examining those policies and benefits available to the wealthy that contribute to them accumulating more wealth while not benefitting society as a whole.

We also need to look at policies and benefits available to working class Americans that impede their ability to acquire wealth. These include affordable healthcare, education and housing

Why is it getting worse despite the fact that Osama is our Prez. I thought our troubles were over.

If you haven't noticed.....he keeps sending cash out of this country. Wonder why that is.

 

[JBeukema]

The world is unfair. There is nothing that can be done to "fix" it. Efforts to correct it are inherently unfair and doomed to fail.

yes.. stupid abolitionists...

The faster you understand this truth, the better. No one's need gives them right to the world, wealth or property of another person. To say otherwise is to condone slavery.

How ironical

 

[JBeukema]

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

Yes it can. It just did. Your "worldview" (and I put it in quotes because I wouldnt dignify your crazy beliefs with the term worldview) is expressible only as emotion. Wealth did not kill that child. Wealth did not starve that child. America had nothing to do with it.
You post horrible emotional photos and expect to get taken seriously?
Please.

You're right. Wealth did not kill the child.

The absence of wealth (specifically food) led to the child's death.

And why do you feel the need to deny involvement to something noone said you involved in? Guilty conscience?

 

[JBeukema]

And with nothing to say on the actual topic of the thread, the wingnut goes to the old standby, a veiled reference to communism even when the poster that he is incompetently trying to attack has already stated that saving capitalism is his goal. He makes a reference to a pension that i don't get, and moves on down the wingnut road, hoping that his ignorant audience will follow the dogma rather than reason.

So it goes.

My Goal is to save Representative Government, Federalism. Tyranny by any brand, Communism, Socialism, Oligarchy, is still pain and suffering for us. no one should be above the Law, that includes both Corporate and Government Interest.

Some would identify Federalism as either tyranny or a stepping stone towards it.

 

[JBeukema]

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

A system of government other than the one in the United States is responsible for that is in that picture.

The greater socio-political reality of the world is responsible for letting it happen.

 

[editec]

Why do you hate the government our founders left us?

Why do you not understand the government the founders left us?

Explain the government the founders left us and how they treated corporations.

\


Well for one thing corporations weren't thought of as entities that were meant to last forever.

For another owning a corporation gave you no relief from its debts. If the corporation went belly up the owners were on the hook for its debts.

If the corporation got sued the owners were on the hook for the lawsuit

For another, corporations were formed to do a SPECIFIC project, and were NOT allowed to do anything else.

For another thing they did not have ANY RIGHT to contribute to the political process.

The founding fathers didn't TRUST corporations like you do.

They fully understood what a bad idea it was to allow wealth and pwoer to concentrate behind a legal entity (that is theoretically immmortal), which is exactly why corporations didn't have the same rights then that they have now.

 

[JBeukema]

The world is unfair.

No it isn't. The world is a chunk of rock orbiting a garden variety yellow star. It is not fair or unfair. It just is. The economy on the other hand is a man made thing. If the economy is unfair, that has nothing to do with market Gods, physics or any other natural laws. It has to do with people deciding to be unfair.

But of course, I made no argument regarding fairness. I made a simple statement of truth on what a mal distribution of wealth does. It makes capitalism eat itelf. Nobody made any substantive retort.

Life is not unfair. Life is eminently fair. Some people get more and some people get less based on a bunch of factors, including diligence and intelligence. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Tell it to a child born in Sudan yesterday.

Yes... eminently fair, only his own diligence and intelligence will determine whether he's the next Westinghouse or not...

 

[LiberalNut]

And again, what we have is a case study in wingnuttery.

Does anyone else on this board have a seven figure net worth? Hmmm? Yet I'm told that the reason that I advocate a redistribution of wealth because I envy. That assertion has nothing to do with reality of course but no matter, reality isn't what matters to wingnuts.

I'm called a communist. Me, if not the richest, among the richest people here. I'm a friggin' communist they say. Even when I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that my goal is to save capitalism and even though I am, in the real world a capitalist. I DO NOT LABOR. But again, the real world is irrelevant. The accusation of communism is just another rhetorical tool in the wingnut fantasy to avoid the real world.

And then, most laughably, I'm told that I am advocating slavery. Slavery no less. Yeah, a dude making seven figure income while producing nothing having to pay a few more dollars in taxes, THAT'S SLAVERY!

So, we've seen all these accusations but what have we not seen? What we have not seen is any substantive refutation of what i said in my original post in this thread. Do you know why we haven't seen that? Cause it doesn't exist. What i said about the effects of a mal distribution of wealth is the truth, plain and simple. The wingnuts, if they bothered to actually look around at the real world, could confirm what I've said with what they see around them. Or, if they think I'm wrong, which their rhetoric would suggest that they do, then they could use real world examples to show how I'm wrong.

But they won't. They can't. That isn't how they're trained. They are trained to repeat, endlessly, catch phrases and talking points that have nothing to do with reality.

It's sad, it's really sad.

But that's why we call them wingnuts.

 

[rightwinger]

In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

But there is no denying that we currently have an unequal distribution of available wealth that is only getting worse. What we are looking at is examining those policies and benefits available to the wealthy that contribute to them accumulating more wealth while not benefitting society as a whole.

We also need to look at policies and benefits available to working class Americans that impede their ability to acquire wealth. These include affordable healthcare, education and housing

The only thing that impedes your ability to acquire wealth is you... You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... the same freedom every other citizen has... and it is ONLY that freedom that the government should ensure... It is not on government to give you a leg up at the expense of others for healthcare or education as an adult or a better house... nor should it be

No.... the only freedom the government should ensure is an even playing field. Right now the path to wealth accumulation is tilted towards those who already control most of it.

The working class does not expect to replace the super wealthy. All they want from life is time to be with their families, a modest home, a chance to see their children educated. The ability to reach that dream is slowly being eroded as wages are stagnant, colleges become more and more out of reach, a major illness or injury can take away everything you have saved.

Meanwhile the wealthy tell them they should be happy with their lot in life and they should really be blaming the poor for their plight......as they accumulate more and more wealth

 

[DiamondDave]

In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

But there is no denying that we currently have an unequal distribution of available wealth that is only getting worse. What we are looking at is examining those policies and benefits available to the wealthy that contribute to them accumulating more wealth while not benefitting society as a whole.

We also need to look at policies and benefits available to working class Americans that impede their ability to acquire wealth. These include affordable healthcare, education and housing

The only thing that impedes your ability to acquire wealth is you... You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... the same freedom every other citizen has... and it is ONLY that freedom that the government should ensure... It is not on government to give you a leg up at the expense of others for healthcare or education as an adult or a better house... nor should it be

No.... the only freedom the government should ensure is an even playing field. Right now the path to wealth accumulation is tilted towards those who already control most of it.

The working class does not expect to replace the super wealthy. All they want from life is time to be with their families, a modest home, a chance to see their children educated. The ability to reach that dream is slowly being eroded as wages are stagnant, colleges become more and more out of reach, a major illness or injury can take away everything you have saved.

Meanwhile the wealthy tell them they should be happy with their lot in life and they should really be blaming the poor for their plight......as they accumulate more and more wealth

No, winger... you are wrong... what you are calling for is for government to use power to sway the possible outcome... not an equal set of rules and the freedom to go where your decisions, efforts, choices, ideas, etc take you

What I or some wealthy person accumulates is of no worry to you in a free society.. nor should it be.... unless you are driven by envy and greed and wish to skew outcome by some warped and subjective view of 'fairness'