400 Americans

[thereisnospoon]

Gee, under Reagan income inequality was much less than after 6 years of Obozo.

How come Reagan gets blamed for Obama's failed policies, even though Reagan was dead before Obama was even a name?

Very true

Income inequality under Reagan could hardly compare to today. After 30 years of Reagan supply side we can see the results

Liberal talking points used to gin up support for democrats...OOPS.....How'd that work out for you?
Can't even hold the governor's seat in the bluest of blue states.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If any of you think it's a good thing, tell us why.

Not one of you can make a case that it's a good thing?

Okay. Then agreeing that it's not a good thing, what then? Is it just inevitable? Just a necessary evil towards some greater good?

What?

No. we simply refuse to respond to pigeon hole questions designed to elicit a predetermined response.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If any of you think it's a good thing, tell us why.

Not one of you can make a case that it's a good thing?

Okay. Then agreeing that it's not a good thing, what then? Is it just inevitable? Just a necessary evil towards some greater good?

What?

What.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If any of you think it's a good thing, tell us why.

Not one of you can make a case that it's a good thing?

Okay. Then agreeing that it's not a good thing, what then? Is it just inevitable? Just a necessary evil towards some greater good?

What?

It is neither good nor bad. Dumb ass.

Therefore it wouldn't matter one way or another if it wasn't the case. So why defend it?

The concept is not being defended nor assailed.
Again, a non issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If any of you think it's a good thing, tell us why.

It is neither good nor bad. Pretty simple concept. here lets play your stupid game.....

Seize all their wealth and distribute it to the supposed poor. Now explain in 2 years or less where you will get the next wealth to distribute when the poor have spent all that?

No. How about the working class makes a little more? How about the guy raising a family, working fulltime, makes 50,000 a year instead of 40,000? How about the minimum wage is 10 bucks instead of 8? How about companies operating in foreign countries paying labor pennies an hour have to pay a tariff to get goods into the US market?

They can....By improving their individual skills and thus becoming more marketable.
Raising one's marketability is a virtual guarantee they will earn more.
Tariffs were a part of history. They didn't work. Trade wars are a waste of time.Nobody wins.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's fantastic that some people can be so wealthy. It's no skin off my nose.

Remember when we used to admire such people and aspire to emulate them?

Aah, the good ol' days, before progressivism saturated our society.

What's fantastic about it? How much money does a man need to reach the point where his life is fantastic?

it is none of your business how much one has nor is need part of the equation. "Need" is a false premise

 

[thereisnospoon]

If any of you think it's a good thing, tell us why.

It is neither good nor bad. Pretty simple concept. here lets play your stupid game.....

Seize all their wealth and distribute it to the supposed poor. Now explain in 2 years or less where you will get the next wealth to distribute when the poor have spent all that?

No. How about the working class makes a little more? How about the guy raising a family, working fulltime, makes 50,000 a year instead of 40,000? How about the minimum wage is 10 bucks instead of 8? How about companies operating in foreign countries paying labor pennies an hour have to pay a tariff to get goods into the US market?

None of that has anything to do with rich people being rich. You want certain laws passed talk to your Congress critters. Instead of trying to claim the simple fact a rich person has more then you is bad.

It has everything to do with the rich being that rich because every dollar a rich man acquires is a dollar that can't go somewhere else.

That's the failed idea of Keynesian economics. The zero sum game does not exist.

 

[Dot Com]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

I would also be interested in hearing why the rw Horse & Sparrow..... errr.....Trickle Down theory hasn't worked.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's fantastic that some people can be so wealthy. It's no skin off my nose.

Remember when we used to admire such people and aspire to emulate them?

Aah, the good ol' days, before progressivism saturated our society.

What's fantastic about it? How much money does a man need to reach the point where his life is fantastic?

Explain again how it is ANY of your business how much anyone has?

Because the rich and powerful make it their business to extract every penny they can from the labor and production of the not-rich.

One has nothing to do with the other.
In order for the business owner to become wealthy he must employ the best workers he can find. He must keep these people producing. So he uses his wealth which he pays to the employees as part of an agreement he has with each. The level of pay increases with both skill and value to the company each worker produces.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is neither good nor bad. Pretty simple concept. here lets play your stupid game.....

Seize all their wealth and distribute it to the supposed poor. Now explain in 2 years or less where you will get the next wealth to distribute when the poor have spent all that?

No. How about the working class makes a little more? How about the guy raising a family, working fulltime, makes 50,000 a year instead of 40,000? How about the minimum wage is 10 bucks instead of 8? How about companies operating in foreign countries paying labor pennies an hour have to pay a tariff to get goods into the US market?

None of that has anything to do with rich people being rich. You want certain laws passed talk to your Congress critters. Instead of trying to claim the simple fact a rich person has more then you is bad.

It has everything to do with the rich being that rich because every dollar a rich man acquires is a dollar that can't go somewhere else.

So now there is a finite amount of money and no one prints more or makes more or earns more or creates more? Perhaps you should reconsider your stupidity.

Name the companies that produce an infinite amount of profit in any given year.

Give us that list.

Missing the point.
Creating your own reality.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Kinda hard to do it with all the regs obutthurt has put on small businesses.

Erm, so the 400 wealthiest Americans can't create more jobs because Obama extended their tax cuts? Well, then, let's cut out that tax break altogether and see if they can create more jobs that way.

non sequitur

 

[thereisnospoon]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Kinda hard to do it with all the regs obutthurt has put on small businesses.

Erm, so the 400 wealthiest Americans can't create more jobs because Obama extended their tax cuts? Well, then, let's cut out that tax break altogether and see if they can create more jobs that way.

OK so instead of having onerous regulations and some kind of tax relief we'll have onerous regulations AND confiscatory taxes. Brilliant!
You understand the Bush tax cuts expired, right? And growth still sucks and the middle class still has stagnating income. Why would you want to replicate failure?

3.9% GDP is not bad. Better than at just about any time during the Bush administration.

Wait just a minute....You people are bitching and moaning about the wealthy being too wealthy. Now you've come up for air and now you're playing the "Obama the greatest job creator in history" card.
Which is it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is neither good nor bad. Pretty simple concept. here lets play your stupid game.....

Seize all their wealth and distribute it to the supposed poor. Now explain in 2 years or less where you will get the next wealth to distribute when the poor have spent all that?

No. How about the working class makes a little more? How about the guy raising a family, working fulltime, makes 50,000 a year instead of 40,000? How about the minimum wage is 10 bucks instead of 8? How about companies operating in foreign countries paying labor pennies an hour have to pay a tariff to get goods into the US market?

None of that has anything to do with rich people being rich. You want certain laws passed talk to your Congress critters. Instead of trying to claim the simple fact a rich person has more then you is bad.

It has everything to do with the rich being that rich because every dollar a rich man acquires is a dollar that can't go somewhere else.

Ah there it is. The fallacy of the fixed pie. The idea that if someone else has a dollar I dont have it. And that's bad.
It is a fallacy, right? You understand that if the rich person doesnt have that dollar no one will have that dollar. Right? Tell me you do so you retain some shred of respect from me.

How many companies generate an infinite amount of revenue every year?

How many companies generate a finite amount of revenue every year,

that then must be divided, LIKE A PIE, amongst the various costs, including stockholders, management, and labor?

How so?

 

[thereisnospoon]

But regardless, even if it were true, the failure is on the part of the bottom half who aren't working and saving enough

Because the bottom half haven't received a fair share of rising productivity gains over the past forty years.

The U.S. productivity farce

Define "fair share"....
Have fun twisting in the wind

 

[francoHFW]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Kinda hard to do it with all the regs obutthurt has put on small businesses.

Erm, so the 400 wealthiest Americans can't create more jobs because Obama extended their tax cuts? Well, then, let's cut out that tax break altogether and see if they can create more jobs that way.

OK so instead of having onerous regulations and some kind of tax relief we'll have onerous regulations AND confiscatory taxes. Brilliant!
You understand the Bush tax cuts expired, right? And growth still sucks and the middle class still has stagnating income. Why would you want to replicate failure?

3.9% GDP is not bad. Better than at just about any time during the Bush administration.

Wait just a minute....You people are bitching and moaning about the wealthy being too wealthy. Now you've come up for air and now you're playing the "Obama the greatest job creator in hShytty Reaganist pistory" card.
Which is it?

Shytty Reaganist policy jobs, functional moron chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP..How bout some INVESTMENT in Americans, cheaper college /training loans, infrastructure jobs, dingbat dupes?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Their fair share? Yes comrade, they were not given their fair share. Wealth is distributed, not earned. It is the job of government to use force to distribute it fairly. And it's fair that politicians get the most since they are the ones who do the real work.

Productivity growth provides the basis for the growth of living standards; since 1970, government has redistributed those benefits upwards to the benefit of those who pay for the election campaigns and retirements of politicians in both major parties. Since 2000, in particular, wages and compensation for typical workers have lagged significantly behind the nation's rapid productivity growth. How have incomes for the richest 0.1% of Americans fared during that time?

Government redistributed? How so? BY what means was this redistribution accomplished?
The productivity vs wage growth correlation is a myth. Inaccurate.
Production is through use of new technologies which permit labor costs to be reduced. Those trained in the new technologies are more highly skilled and this are earning higher wages. Those that did not avail themselves of the education now necessary to work in the new standards are left behind.
Note the issue. "Those that did not avail themselves of education"....A CHOICE

 

[thereisnospoon]

But you have to work hard, care about your job, invest in yourself. It's not up to me to make up for your lazy, greedy gimme ass that wants money without working for it.

"Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005.

"From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period."

Have execs and workers in finance, not to mention CEOs, been working harder than your lazy, gullible ass since '78 or have they obtained their increased wealth by bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies?

The U.S. productivity farce

Non responsive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

That's not really a fair and accurate description.

How else would you describe government provided taxpayer funded entitlements

 

[Spare_change]

Their fair share? Yes comrade, they were not given their fair share. Wealth is distributed, not earned. It is the job of government to use force to distribute it fairly. And it's fair that politicians get the most since they are the ones who do the real work.

Productivity growth provides the basis for the growth of living standards; since 1970, government has redistributed those benefits upwards to the benefit of those who pay for the election campaigns and retirements of politicians in both major parties. Since 2000, in particular, wages and compensation for typical workers have lagged significantly behind the nation's rapid productivity growth. How have incomes for the richest 0.1% of Americans fared during that time?

Government redistributed? How so? BY what means was this redistribution accomplished?
The productivity vs wage growth correlation is a myth. Inaccurate.
Production is through use of new technologies which permit labor costs to be reduced. Those trained in the new technologies are more highly skilled and this are earning higher wages. Those that did not avail themselves of the education now necessary to work in the new standards are left behind.
Note the issue. "Those that did not avail themselves of education"....A CHOICE

Easy, man .... you know you can't bring logic to a discussion with those who only want to play to the emotion of people. Facts are inconvenient things, so they just ignore them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

All your Marxist rhetoric adds up to nothing. If you care about your job and work at it, success and money in this country are as easy as falling off a log.

You got yours, right Rockefeller?
"'Après moi le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society,' wrote Karl Marx in Capital (Vol. 1, Part III, Chapter Ten, Section 5). What Marx said in the late nineteenth century still holds true today."
Critical Montages Apr s moi le d luge

Inevitably, this argument leads every liberal to this square on the checker board. The old "You got yours" nonsense.
Guess what? It's a load of crap.... It's a pant laod because it presupposes the notion that NO ONE earns anything. That it is "given". And thus in the mind of the left winger, is available to be taken away.