Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

[editec]

Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

ONLY if you actually care about the fate of this nation.

If all that matters is how well you personally are doing?

Don't worry your libertarian, greed is good, Randian, little heads about it.

 

[midcan5]

Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

ONLY if you actually care about the fate of this nation.

If all that matters is how well you personally are doing?

Don't worry your libertarian, greed is good, Randian, little heads about it.

Agree.

"Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[dblack]

...Not only is it assuming that the 70 percent does not affect the tax collection and it WILL, but also that redistributing 25k to every family will make that same 25k next to worthless. Simply taking from one and giving to another is not going to fix the problems and I don't know how many times history has to show them before they will understand why....

I'm reminded of when I had to explain to my son why the government can't solve the problem of poverty by just 'giving' everyone $50k. Except that he was eight... and he actually got it.

 

[blastoff]

I'm highly concerned about the disparity. I've got a nice pile but others have even bigger piles!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The reason our economy is in the shitter right now is because of economic diparity.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I know that confuses some of us.

Only those of us with IQ's greater than 50/

Nevertheless that is at the heart of the debt crises we're currently in,

Partisans - so ******* stupid, yet SO ******* stupid....

 

[Uncensored2008]

This position is just as ideologically blind as the 'meritocrats'. Whereas, they assume everyone with an very high income deserves it for some reason, the argument above assumes that every last of them is guilty. If the problem is that there's thieving going on (and I agree there is), then lets put a stop to it. Indulging Robin Hood fantasies might inspire the peasants, but it ignores the real problems.

It also assumes that the government, the ruling elite, is the "REAL OWNER" of all wealth, the people are merely assets of the state. This is the heart of the left, the yearning for a return to Monarchy, the concept that rulers of the state are the rightful owners of all, and that those who earn do so only for the benefit of their lords and sovereigns.

We know that people like Midcan seek a dictatorship, but behind the desire for a dictator is the yearning for a return to rule by divine right, that rulers such as Obama are meant by nature or whatever they worship to rule the rest. It boils down to monarchy and feudalism - the ultimate goal of the left.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Haha thanks for doing the research for me.

Funny that you didn't notice that the research he provided had nothing to do with the challenge I gave you.

What challenge? You know, I think you are just butthurt because you were unable to come up with an argument to my OP.

UPDATE:

Wealth And Inequality In America

You know it's amazing what you can find with a simple Google search. You should try it some time.

Wow, 15 more charts that have nothing to do with your OP.

My challenge was simple, you said this.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

Haha thanks for doing the research for me.

Funny that you didn't notice that the research he provided had nothing to do with the challenge I gave you.

What challenge? You know, I think you are just butthurt because you were unable to come up with an argument to my OP.

UPDATE:

Wealth And Inequality In America

You know it's amazing what you can find with a simple Google search. You should try it some time.

Wow, 15 charts that have nothing to do with what you said.

It is funny what happens iy you go back and reread a thread if you miss something, you should try it sometime.

Here is what you said.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

I responded with this.

What disparity of wealth? Show me some numbers so I can use them to prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I am actually willing to use whatever numbers you thyink prove your point rather than go back and repost the numbers I have posted before that already prove it.

You have not yet proved anything like the argument in your OP, which was that the rich are richer because the poor are poorer. In order for that to be true you would have to prove that the poor today not only have less buying power than they did before this started, you would have to prove there are more of them. Until you provide numbers on that challenge, which you have not, I cannot refute your argument using the numbers you relied on to reach your conclusion.

On the other hand, you could just admit you did not reach that conclusion by actually looking at facts, and I can continue to mock both your position and your thought processes.

 

[eflatminor]

It has been an issue since the 1970's

Actually, the issue of wealth "inequity" has been around since the beginning of the country. In fact, the gap is WIDER today than it was during the robber barron days, when we had something much closer to free markets. It would appear the more government meddling, the more of an income gap. But you keep voting for your central planners...they know what's best for all of us, right?

Dolt.

 

[Billy000]

Funny that you didn't notice that the research he provided had nothing to do with the challenge I gave you.

What challenge? You know, I think you are just butthurt because you were unable to come up with an argument to my OP.

UPDATE:

Wealth And Inequality In America

You know it's amazing what you can find with a simple Google search. You should try it some time.

Wow, 15 more charts that have nothing to do with your OP.

My challenge was simple, you said this.








Wow, 15 charts that have nothing to do with what you said.

It is funny what happens iy you go back and reread a thread if you miss something, you should try it sometime.

Here is what you said.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

I responded with this.

What disparity of wealth? Show me some numbers so I can use them to prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I am actually willing to use whatever numbers you thyink prove your point rather than go back and repost the numbers I have posted before that already prove it.

You have not yet proved anything like the argument in your OP, which was that the rich are richer because the poor are poorer. In order for that to be true you would have to prove that the poor today not only have less buying power than they did before this started, you would have to prove there are more of them. Until you provide numbers on that challenge, which you have not, I cannot refute your argument using the numbers you relied on to reach your conclusion.

On the other hand, you could just admit you did not reach that conclusion by actually looking at facts, and I can continue to mock both your position and your thought processes.

You are such a tool. You asked for proof of the unfairness in the disparity of wealth, and I gave it to you. I made several points in my OP. You chose to counter one of them.

I also NEVER said the poor are getting more poor. I said that that they are not realizing the full contribution of their labor. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What challenge? You know, I think you are just butthurt because you were unable to come up with an argument to my OP.

UPDATE:

Wealth And Inequality In America

You know it's amazing what you can find with a simple Google search. You should try it some time.

Wow, 15 more charts that have nothing to do with your OP.

My challenge was simple, you said this.








Wow, 15 charts that have nothing to do with what you said.

It is funny what happens iy you go back and reread a thread if you miss something, you should try it sometime.

Here is what you said.



I responded with this.

What disparity of wealth? Show me some numbers so I can use them to prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I am actually willing to use whatever numbers you thyink prove your point rather than go back and repost the numbers I have posted before that already prove it.

You have not yet proved anything like the argument in your OP, which was that the rich are richer because the poor are poorer. In order for that to be true you would have to prove that the poor today not only have less buying power than they did before this started, you would have to prove there are more of them. Until you provide numbers on that challenge, which you have not, I cannot refute your argument using the numbers you relied on to reach your conclusion.

On the other hand, you could just admit you did not reach that conclusion by actually looking at facts, and I can continue to mock both your position and your thought processes.

You are such a tool. You asked for proof of the unfairness in the disparity of wealth, and I gave it to you. I made several points in my OP. You chose to counter one of them.

I also NEVER said the poor are getting more poor. I said that that they are not realizing the full contribution of their labor. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

No, I asked you what numbers you based your opinion on. The fact that you had to resort to Google to defend your position is all the proof anyone needs that your opinion was not based on numbers or facts, it must have been based on talking points from political pundits. I am now using your OP to show just how incredibly ignorant you actually are.

 

[Billy000]

Wow, 15 more charts that have nothing to do with your OP.

My challenge was simple, you said this.








Wow, 15 charts that have nothing to do with what you said.

It is funny what happens iy you go back and reread a thread if you miss something, you should try it sometime.

Here is what you said.



I responded with this.



You have not yet proved anything like the argument in your OP, which was that the rich are richer because the poor are poorer. In order for that to be true you would have to prove that the poor today not only have less buying power than they did before this started, you would have to prove there are more of them. Until you provide numbers on that challenge, which you have not, I cannot refute your argument using the numbers you relied on to reach your conclusion.

On the other hand, you could just admit you did not reach that conclusion by actually looking at facts, and I can continue to mock both your position and your thought processes.

You are such a tool. You asked for proof of the unfairness in the disparity of wealth, and I gave it to you. I made several points in my OP. You chose to counter one of them.

I also NEVER said the poor are getting more poor. I said that that they are not realizing the full contribution of their labor. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

No, I asked you what numbers you based your opinion on. The fact that you had to resort to Google to defend your position is all the proof anyone needs that your opinion was not based on numbers or facts, it must have been based on talking points from political pundits. I am now using your OP to show just how incredibly ignorant you actually are.

Oh, come on, you are a joke. Just admit you have nothing to counter my argument. I gave you facts in my OP and then I backed them up. You just can't get past that, can you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are such a tool. You asked for proof of the unfairness in the disparity of wealth, and I gave it to you. I made several points in my OP. You chose to counter one of them.

I also NEVER said the poor are getting more poor. I said that that they are not realizing the full contribution of their labor. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

No, I asked you what numbers you based your opinion on. The fact that you had to resort to Google to defend your position is all the proof anyone needs that your opinion was not based on numbers or facts, it must have been based on talking points from political pundits. I am now using your OP to show just how incredibly ignorant you actually are.

Oh, come on, you are a joke. Just admit you have nothing to counter my argument. I gave you facts in my OP and then I backed them up. You just can't get past that, can you?

You have to have an argument before I can counter it. Wild, unsubstantiated, statements is not an argument, didn't you learn critical thinking in school?

 

[Dragon]

In fact, the gap is WIDER today than it was during the robber barron days, when we had something much closer to free markets. It would appear the more government meddling, the more of an income gap.

How about you not cherry-pick two dates over a century apart, but instead consider all the times in between, hmm?

Income gaps were LOWEST in this country in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Lower than they are now, and lower than they were in the robber-baron days, too. Would you say there was more or less "government meddling" during those decades than in robber-baron days? How about compared to today?

Do you think, then, that a conclusion about HOW MUCH (as distinct from what kind of) government "meddling" in the economy contributes to income inequality may just possibly not be justified by the data?

 

[Billy000]

No, I asked you what numbers you based your opinion on. The fact that you had to resort to Google to defend your position is all the proof anyone needs that your opinion was not based on numbers or facts, it must have been based on talking points from political pundits. I am now using your OP to show just how incredibly ignorant you actually are.

Oh, come on, you are a joke. Just admit you have nothing to counter my argument. I gave you facts in my OP and then I backed them up. You just can't get past that, can you?

You have to have an argument before I can counter it. Wild, unsubstantiated, statements is not an argument, didn't you learn critical thinking in school?

How is my OP not an argument? Explain that to me.

 

[mudwhistle]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

maldistribution is not a word.

I'm trying to figure what planet you're from.

Maybe you think you're living in the 23rd century in San Francisco at Starfleet.

 

[The T]

We are...wealth redistribution (legalized theft) is NOT the way to address it.

 

[Billy000]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

maldistribution is not a word.

I'm trying to figure what planet you're from.

Maybe you think you're living in the 23rd century in San Francisco at Starfleet.

Um, no, it is a word:

Maldistribution | Define Maldistribution at Dictionary.com

 

[Dragon]

We are...wealth redistribution (legalized theft) is NOT the way to address it.

But that's what's been done for the past thirty years, which is why we have such a huge income gap now.

 

[freedombecki]

Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

Sorry, Billy000, what you are proposing is against what I read in my bible. It tells us plainly to "be not a respecter of persons."

Snoops and snitches are always poking and proding their way into other people's business inappropriately. I ran a business once. The twelfth to fourteenth years someone worked for me who was an embezzler. She was always wanting to hover over the cash drawer, so I put her in charge of deposits. While she worked there, I could not figure out why for the first time my business could not pay all its bills. One day she was caught stealing cash, and all that hovering and other peculiar behaviors started making sense for the first time in 2 years. She bled the business nearly to bankruptcy, but my bank made me $40,000 in loans to get back on my feet. It took me 5 years to pay off all that money, so I really never made a dime while she was working and for the 5 years in the wake of a criminal's bad deeds, I paid interest on money missing from my business for her two years of surreptitious behaviors that hurt my family and forced me to lay off 3 other people due to lack of funds.

She assumed that since I owned a lovely business and worked endlessly on community projects, that somehow I must have been so rich I wouldn't notice her thefts. She was right, I didn't notice her stealing, but she did take all the money I would have made for 7 years--2 active, 5 while paying off her madness.

Politicians have no right to redistribute other people's money any more than criminals do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Um, no, it is a word:

Maldistribution | Define Maldistribution at Dictionary.com

Regardless.

You ducked my earlier post where I pointed out the the standard of living for the lower and middle classes have dramatically increased in the last century. This is irrefutable fact, the poor and middle live better than at any time in human history.

Given this, your entire argument is one of envy and greed, the fact that others have even more than you do is the foundation of your complaint.

The truth of the left is they want for nothing yet they lust for everything.