Enough with this income inequality nonsense

[Dragon]

You are absolutely right. As further proof, what happens to poor people who win millions of dollars in the lottery. The more "poor" these winners are, the faster they lose their fortunes leaving them just as homeless and starving as they were before they picked up the check. They keep on doing the things that made them poor in the first place.

That's true, but it remains the case that numbers exist which are greater than zero and less than infinity, and those numbers are not all equal. Y'all are totally missing the point here.

 

[PredFan]

The wealthy rigged the game under Bush

Actually all of Obama's cronies stole it.

There's some truth right there.

Frank, Dodd, et al.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ha! Gramps, all you're really saying here is that Obama is part of the problem. Which is true.

Welcome to the populist/class warrior/progressive/socialist ranks, comrade!

I don't believe in the rhetoric. I just find it funny that Obama gets a pass.

 

[PredFan]

The reason that there is income inequiyt is because the rich keep doing the things that made them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that made them poor.

That's true, but numbers exist that are greater than zero and less than infinity, and those numbers are not all equal.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[PredFan]

Watch the video people.

Cant get past the firewall at work.

 

[PredFan]

The reason that there is income inequiyt is because the rich keep doing the things that made them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that made them poor.

Income inequity exists because the number of lazy paracites in this country is on the increase.

You are absolutely right. As further proof, what happens to poor people who win millions of dollars in the lottery. The more "poor" these winners are, the faster they lose their fortunes leaving them just as homeless and starving as they were before they picked up the check. They keep on doing the things that made them poor in the first place.

Then obama comes along and says, "Let me help you, it's not YOUR fault, it's the evil rich people that are keeping you down. You'd be rich if it wasn't for them, keep me in office and I'll punish them."

 

[francoHFW]

Tarp was Bush and Paulson, a giveaway with no strings attached to their cronies who caused the housing meltdown., but did save the financial world.

The stimulus saved the auto industry and enough jobs to aver a depression. Voodoo has bloated the rich and ruined the nonrich and the country's physical and intellectual infrastructure.

Fi on greedy Pubs and their silly dupes. Can't handle facts or WHAT, dumbazzes? see sig, pp1

 

[Dragon]

The reason that there is income inequiyt is because the rich keep doing the things that made them rich, and the poor keep doing the things that made them poor.

That's true, but numbers exist that are greater than zero and less than infinity, and those numbers are not all equal.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

If it's obvious, then why are you ignoring it? The question isn't why income inequality EXISTS. The question is why it HAS GROWN SO DRAMATICALLY over the last 30 years. Whatever has caused that CHANGE in the magnitude of income inequality, it is NOT people continuing to do the same things they've always done.

 

[PredFan]

That's bad, how?

Because it is not free market to give taxpayer money and a free ride to banks, hurts America and is wrong.

That was our exact argument against the stimulus. Most, if not all conservatives I know were against TARP....against the GM bailout and against a stimulus that gives to some but not all.

1)TARP rewarded those who failed

2) The GM bailout rewarded a failed business model at the expense of Ford who did most things right who should have capitalized on the loss of a major competitor.

3) To give stimulus money to one company but not to one of its competitor gives an unfair advantage to the lucky company that received.

And to boot? The tax payer never had a say in any of it....yet it was our money.

I was then and am still, against government handouts to private companies and corporations, as much as I am against government handouts to individuals.

 

[PredFan]

You are absolutely right. As further proof, what happens to poor people who win millions of dollars in the lottery. The more "poor" these winners are, the faster they lose their fortunes leaving them just as homeless and starving as they were before they picked up the check. They keep on doing the things that made them poor in the first place.

That's true, but it remains the case that numbers exist which are greater than zero and less than infinity, and those numbers are not all equal. Y'all are totally missing the point here.

Apparently I am too. Explain please.

 

[francoHFW]

The wealthy rigged the game under Bush

Actually all of Obama's cronies stole it.

There's some truth right there.

Frank, Dodd, et al.

Absolute brainwashed Pub dupe idiocy. Pubs controlled congress 1995-2007, and vetoed everything 2007-2009.

 

[Jarhead]

That's true, but numbers exist that are greater than zero and less than infinity, and those numbers are not all equal.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

If it's obvious, then why are you ignoring it? The question isn't why income inequality EXISTS. The question is why it HAS GROWN SO DRAMATICALLY over the last 30 years. Whatever has caused that CHANGE in the magnitude of income inequality, it is NOT people continuing to do the same things they've always done.

Changes in technology have allowed wealthy investors to make better decisions as it pertains to investments....and changes in market requiements have allowed many more companies go public....

Furthermore, increase in communication efficiency has allowed a much easier access to split decision investment opportunities overseas.

It is not that the rich are getting richer.

It is that those that know how to invest properly are able to do it more efficiently.

 

[Katzndogz]

The stimulus did work for GM. Just not here.

The money GM got was used to build a new factory in China, with Chinese workers and GM is doing well with Asian sales.

Then GM got another stimulus which enabled them to pay off part of the first round of give away making it look like they paid part of it back.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually all of Obama's cronies stole it.

There's some truth right there.

Frank, Dodd, et al.

Absolute brainwashed Pub dupe idiocy. Pubs controlled congress 1995-2007, and vetoed everything 2007-2009.

what was it that Frank and Dodd wanted to pass and vetoed by Bush that would have prevented FM and FM from exasperrating the housing issue?

 

[Dragon]

As noted in my last post, what I'm saying is that the problem here isn't that income inequality EXISTS -- i.e., is greater than zero. The problem is that, over the past 30 years, it has grown enormously. The richest people now take a much GREATER share of the nation's income than they did in 1980. That they take a disproportionate share is only another way of saying that they're rich, but the problem is how much they do, and how much more that is than it used to be.

There is a wide range of behaviors and circumstances behind where one falls on the economic scale. All else being equal (which it isn't), more effective economic behavior will net one a higher income. That's the reason why income inequality EXISTS. But over the past 30 years, economic behavior that used to result in a middle-class income has changed to resulting in a lower-class income, while economic behavior that used to result in merely being rich has changed to resulting in being mega-rich.

The bar of success has gotten higher, as have the rewards for the highest levels of success. The question that needs answering is why that has happened -- not the much simpler and less significant question of why there is any income inequality at all.

 

[PredFan]

If it's obvious, then why are you ignoring it?

I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't get it. Even after seeing your explanation below, I don't see how it matches your "Less than infinity, more than zero" statement.

The question isn't why income inequality EXISTS. The question is why it HAS GROWN SO DRAMATICALLY over the last 30 years. Whatever has caused that CHANGE in the magnitude of income inequality, it is NOT people continuing to do the same things they've always done.

Sure it is. If the rich keep doing the things that got them there, and the poor keep doing the things that got them there, then the gap widens. The number of people on government handouts has GROWN DRAMATICALLY over the lst 30 years, it goes without saying that the income gap would widen. If you don't agree then explain yourself.

 

[Dragon]

Changes in technology have allowed wealthy investors to make better decisions as it pertains to investments....and changes in market requiements have allowed many more companies go public....

Furthermore, increase in communication efficiency has allowed a much easier access to split decision investment opportunities overseas.

All right, increased opportunities for those at the top to make much more money. That's part of the answer, sure. Hold on that for a moment, because there's much more to the picture than you've painted, and I believe government policy plays a much larger role than you're acknowledging.

Now, why is that there are no longer jobs that pay a middle-class income without an advanced degree?

 

[PredFan]

Actually all of Obama's cronies stole it.

There's some truth right there.

Frank, Dodd, et al.

Absolute brainwashed Pub dupe idiocy. Pubs controlled congress 1995-2007, and vetoed everything 2007-2009.

Absolute brainwashed left wing nut lunacy. George Bush tried to rein in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac 4 times when he was POTUS, prediciting exactly what happened. Barney Frank and the rest of the democrat congress blocked his every effort.

Fact pal, read it and weep.

 

[Jarhead]

As noted in my last post, what I'm saying is that the problem here isn't that income inequality EXISTS -- i.e., is greater than zero. The problem is that, over the past 30 years, it has grown enormously. The richest people now take a much GREATER share of the nation's income than they did in 1980. That they take a disproportionate share is only another way of saying that they're rich, but the problem is how much they do, and how much more that is than it used to be.

There is a wide range of behaviors and circumstances behind where one falls on the economic scale. All else being equal (which it isn't), more effective economic behavior will net one a higher income. That's the reason why income inequality EXISTS. But over the past 30 years, economic behavior that used to result in a middle-class income has changed to resulting in a lower-class income, while economic behavior that used to result in merely being rich has changed to resulting in being mega-rich.

The bar of success has gotten higher, as have the rewards for the highest levels of success. The question that needs answering is why that has happened -- not the much simpler and less significant question of why there is any income inequality at all.

the answer is quite simple.

Over the years people have lost the drive to fend for themselves. We are now in a world where we can live quite well without having to rissk all we have to get there.

Put aside how what I am about to say imay sound like rhetoric....in other words, hear what I am saying....

When I was young, my parents had to work hard to earn enough for a car, a TV, a/c, etc..

Now? The poor have what my parents strove for when they were middle class.

So what has happened is all BUT the rich have nothing to strive for that is trulky within reach...they have their needs and most have their wants.

Sure, all say "I want more money"....but most are not willing to work 15 hours a day for it...and I dont blame them.

But in the meantime? Those with EXTRA money invest. And with the reaches of technology, they can truly turn their moeny into bigger money.

Heck...give a poor man 1,000,000 dollars and with the right advice, he too can turn it into 10 million within a few years.

 

[Jarhead]

Changes in technology have allowed wealthy investors to make better decisions as it pertains to investments....and changes in market requiements have allowed many more companies go public....

Furthermore, increase in communication efficiency has allowed a much easier access to split decision investment opportunities overseas.

All right, increased opportunities for those at the top to make much more money. That's part of the answer, sure. Hold on that for a moment, because there's much more to the picture than you've painted, and I believe government policy plays a much larger role than you're acknowledging.

Now, why is that there are no longer jobs that pay a middle-class income without an advanced degree?

Becuase those jobs have been replaced by technology.

Back in the day, a skilled lathe turner would sit at his lathe and put out quality work..and he was paid according to his talent.

Now...a lathe is CNC...and there is a man that turns it on and turns it off...and it is quality work....but not becuase of the man poushing the button...but becuase of the computer specifics...

So a man who was paid very well for his talent was replaced by a computer and a man who is paid according to his skill....the skill of turning on and off a button.....

Now....you tell me....

Should you pay a man who turns on and off a button the same as a man who does detail work and actually creates the prodcut?