Income equality bull shit.

[Redfish]

I understand we have a small percentage of our population that controls a major portion of our wealth and income

I have no desire to try to take away that wealth, but as a taxpayer, I question why we should continue policies that only serve to add to that wealth

which policies are those and which party put them in place?

 

[PredFan]

We DO have equality of opportunity? Not so sure.

To say something like that would be to assume that crony capitalism no longer exists, that the market place is driven by pure competition, and that individuals are hired always on merit. Not sure if that's the case. It's a buddy/buddy world out there. The "best family" will always beat out the "best man".

I think you're oversimplifying things.

I do agree with you in that Obama's mention of the argument is purely politically motivated, and quite insincere.

Yes, we do have equality of opportunity. The fact that some have to work harder for the opportunity does not mean that it does not exist.

No one ever said that everyone would reach the top or that everyone would not fail. Equality of opportunity includes both the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.

equal results were not ever guaranteed

I understand your argument and agree with most of it, however I think you're failing to understand mine.

My point is that crony capitalism is on the rise (vs on the fall), and that politicians are becoming less and less honorable/ethical, and that this is seriously beginning to threaten a lower class American's ability to ascend and succeed if they have the skill and talent to do so.

Maybe it's always been that way - I don't know - however I've read at least a few books that have mentioned the fact that a Congressperson on a defense committee today wouldn't think twice about attending a fundraiser and rub shoulders with powerful defense lobbyists whereas 50 years ago that type of thing would be heavily frowned upon as unethical.

My point is that we're headed in the wrong direction and this needs to be addressed.

Capitalism will not thrive when winners are chosen directly by the winners (vs chosen by their usefulness to society).

Sounds to me that you are just regurgitating what you have heard and not really understanding it.

How are the politicians stopping the poor from gaining wealth? Unless you mean hooking them into permanent handouts from the taxpayers.

How is crony capitalism stopping them?

 

[rightwinger]

I understand we have a small percentage of our population that controls a major portion of our wealth and income

I have no desire to try to take away that wealth, but as a taxpayer, I question why we should continue policies that only serve to add to that wealth

which policies are those and which party put them in place?

Glad you asked....

Lets start with why Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than labor is

If one man works all year digging ditches for $25,000 and another makes $25,000 by clicking a mouse on a computer.....why does the Ditch Digger pay more in taxes?

 

[kwc57]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



your cheating is court documented all the way to the SCOTUS

Quit trolling my thread with your irrelevant nonsense.

I got a kick out of the fact that she started quoting and responding to her own posts because everyone else avoids engaging the crazy lady standing on the corner shouting at nothing.

 

[PredFan]

Massive inequality of outcome - the path to the end of capitalism and Democracy
modest inequality of outcome - growing prosperous capitalist system
Equality of outcome - never gonna happen

I find it amusing to watch people complain about this issue while displaying such woeful ignorance of what the problem is and what is being complained about.

So, the "problem" as you see it is that people like Oprah and Beyonce have tons of money and you have very little. Have you asked them to send some to you?

No, the problem is that when wealth is controlled by a few, we get an Oligarchy. The masses then start reaching for the pitchforks and torches and storm the Bastille. As I have stated before, it is amusing when you guys call Obama a socialist when he is nothing of the sort. He is a corporatist, just like every president. If Obama's a socialist, then he is the worst socialist that ever walked the earth.

1. I state the opposite. In my OP, I point out that the gap has widened under Obama.

2. I call Obama a socialist because that is what he believes in. I'm a Libertarian yet I've not accomplished a single libertarian goal.

3. Wealth might be in the hands if a few, but the opportunity for people to obtain wealth for themselves still exists. They won't pick up the pitchforks unless the democrats goad them into it with this class warfare and income inequality nonsense.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes, we do have equality of opportunity. The fact that some have to work harder for the opportunity does not mean that it does not exist.

No one ever said that everyone would reach the top or that everyone would not fail. Equality of opportunity includes both the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.

equal results were not ever guaranteed

I understand your argument and agree with most of it, however I think you're failing to understand mine.

My point is that crony capitalism is on the rise (vs on the fall), and that politicians are becoming less and less honorable/ethical, and that this is seriously beginning to threaten a lower class American's ability to ascend and succeed if they have the skill and talent to do so.

Maybe it's always been that way - I don't know - however I've read at least a few books that have mentioned the fact that a Congressperson on a defense committee today wouldn't think twice about attending a fundraiser and rub shoulders with powerful defense lobbyists whereas 50 years ago that type of thing would be heavily frowned upon as unethical.

My point is that we're headed in the wrong direction and this needs to be addressed.

Capitalism will not thrive when winners are chosen directly by the winners (vs chosen by their usefulness to society).

Sounds to me that you are just regurgitating what you have heard and not really understanding it.

How are the politicians stopping the poor from gaining wealth? Unless you mean hooking them into permanent handouts from the taxpayers.

How is crony capitalism stopping them?

How? Well for starters we have a situation not even 10 years ago when a number of gigantic companies were somehow able to commit widespread fraud by giving loans out to people who shouldn't get loans and bundle them into securities only to commit fraud again when they sold garbage as "AAA" material to unfortunate investors.

1.) When the house of cards collapsed a small percentage of swine made off like ******* bandits while millions upon millions upon millions of normal hardworking folks lost their jobs.
2.) To add insult to injury, Henry Paulson was the acting "Secretary of Treasury" at the time and made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the entities that caused the crisis deserved to be given EVEN MORE money by the taxpayers who are now all out of work.
3.) The banking entities now - with the taxpayers money - were able to buy up the market at a cost of pennies on the dollar, making EVEN MORE money. They may have paid back "the loan", but they got to keep all the profit they made from that loan.

I'm 100% OK with talented, useful, able individuals succeeding because they created value for the world and everyone wants to buy their product or service. I'm ok with them becoming wildly and ungodly rich in the process. However I feel like we're quickly becoming a society where people who are succeeding on a major scale are only doing so because they the money to bribe the right people.

We have a society where the black guy robbing a 7/11 for $100 is given 15 years while the CFO of Goldman Sachs is given a slap on the wrist for defrauding investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. You don't think that backwards-ass thinking doesn't work to prevent a lesser wealthy person from succeeding? Really?

 

[Indeependent]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

Considering the number of unemployed and underemployed far exceeds that of the Conservative, I would suggest they pick another meme.

How about "Jobs for US Citizens"?
Nah! That would infringe on FREEDOM!

Unlike progressives we conservatives care more about the country and about our descendants than we do about winning elections. For people like you and those you vote for, the ends justify the means, all you care about is getting the win at all costs. You can keep that shit.

All Conservatives care about is their money; they don't give a damn about the US or their children.

 

[PredFan]

I understand we have a small percentage of our population that controls a major portion of our wealth and income

I have no desire to try to take away that wealth, but as a taxpayer, I question why we should continue policies that only serve to add to that wealth

Of you are talking about corporate subsidies, I am in total agreement.

 

[TooTall]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Read this and then tell me that the Air Traffic Controllers were not at fault.

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.
On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

In addition to illegally going out on strike, the ATC was counting on the Canadian controllers to follow them on strike and they didn't want to lose their jobs and stayed at work. There are penalties for violating Federal law and Reagan took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, and he did just that.

 

[PredFan]

I understand your argument and agree with most of it, however I think you're failing to understand mine.

My point is that crony capitalism is on the rise (vs on the fall), and that politicians are becoming less and less honorable/ethical, and that this is seriously beginning to threaten a lower class American's ability to ascend and succeed if they have the skill and talent to do so.

Maybe it's always been that way - I don't know - however I've read at least a few books that have mentioned the fact that a Congressperson on a defense committee today wouldn't think twice about attending a fundraiser and rub shoulders with powerful defense lobbyists whereas 50 years ago that type of thing would be heavily frowned upon as unethical.

My point is that we're headed in the wrong direction and this needs to be addressed.

Capitalism will not thrive when winners are chosen directly by the winners (vs chosen by their usefulness to society).

Sounds to me that you are just regurgitating what you have heard and not really understanding it.

How are the politicians stopping the poor from gaining wealth? Unless you mean hooking them into permanent handouts from the taxpayers.

How is crony capitalism stopping them?

How? Well for starters we have a situation not even 10 years ago when a number of gigantic companies were somehow able to commit widespread fraud by giving loans out to people who shouldn't get loans and bundle them into securities only to commit fraud again when they sold garbage as "AAA" material to unfortunate investors. Then:

1.) When the house of cards collapsed a small percentage of swine made off like ******* bandits while millions upon millions upon millions of normal hardworking folks lost their jobs.
2.) To add insult to injury, Henry Paulson was the acting "Secretary of Treasury" at the time and made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the entities that caused the crisis deserved to be given EVEN MORE money by the taxpayers who are now all out of work.
3.) The banking entities now - with the taxpayers money - were able to buy up the market at a cost of pennies on the dollar, making EVEN MORE money. They may have paid back "the loan", but they got to keep all the profit they made from that loan.

You don't think that sort of thing hurts an Average American's ability to succeed?

I'm 100% OK with talented, useful, able, individuals succeeding because they created value for the world and everyone wants to buy their product or service. I'm ok with them becoming wildly and ungodly rich in the process. However I feel like we're quickly becoming a society where people who are succeeding on a major scale are only doing so because they know who to bribe and rub shoulders with.

I don't agree that that stops the average American from succeeding. It certainly ended some people's dreams back then but that doesn't mean that there isn't equality of opportunity still.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Closed Caption is a fine example if the sheeple who will buy into this rehashing of the old scam from 2008. He won't even care to notice that the gap has widened under his hero Obama.

Pred is a fine example of someone who makes assumptions and ends up looking like an asshole.

What scam? You dont even know

I noticed the gap widened. Have you? Obama the liberal socialist as you call him has made people MORE money and you still think hes some sort of ultra liberal.

Now thats what you call ignoring the evidence for the talking points. Pred believes that a socialist makes the rich more money isnt that right Pred. Tell everyone how this liberal is making the rich money and how Obama hates the rich you dummy

 

[PredFan]

Considering the number of unemployed and underemployed far exceeds that of the Conservative, I would suggest they pick another meme.

How about "Jobs for US Citizens"?
Nah! That would infringe on FREEDOM!

Unlike progressives we conservatives care more about the country and about our descendants than we do about winning elections. For people like you and those you vote for, the ends justify the means, all you care about is getting the win at all costs. You can keep that shit.

All Conservatives care about is their money; they don't give a damn about the US or their children.

Ignorant garbage. Can you not read?

 

[Indeependent]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Read this and then tell me that the Air Traffic Controllers were not at fault.

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.
On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

In addition to illegally going out on strike, the ATC was counting on the Canadian controllers to follow them on strike and they didn't want to lose their jobs and stayed at work. There are penalties for violating Federal law and Reagan took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, and he did just that.

How convenient to ignore 80% of my posting.
Reagan showed BALLS with the ATCs!
He could have humbled the other unions also into accepting less overbearing salaries and benefits and kept the jobs in the US.
Reagan was as big a shill for Wall Street as one could get.

 

[PredFan]

Closed Caption is a fine example if the sheeple who will buy into this rehashing of the old scam from 2008. He won't even care to notice that the gap has widened under his hero Obama.

Pred is a fine example of someone who makes assumptions and ends up looking like an asshole.

What scam? You dont even know

I noticed the gap widened. Have you? Obama the liberal socialist as you call him has made people MORE money and you still think hes some sort of ultra liberal.

Now thats what you call ignoring the evidence for the talking points. Pred believes that a socialist makes the rich more money isnt that right Pred. Tell everyone how this liberal is making the rich money and how Obama hates the rich you dummy

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Perhaps that is why you sound like an idiot.

 

[Bombur]

who do you blame? just curious.

I don't really blame anyone for the forces that lead to it. I do think it is the responsibility of our government to address it. So I do blame them for failing to address it.

 

[Indeependent]

Unlike progressives we conservatives care more about the country and about our descendants than we do about winning elections. For people like you and those you vote for, the ends justify the means, all you care about is getting the win at all costs. You can keep that shit.

All Conservatives care about is their money; they don't give a damn about the US or their children.

Ignorant garbage. Can you not read?

Read?
I belong to two congregations of over 1500 families; I know how Conservatives think because they can't shut up about how Godly they are.
They don't give a crap about anyone but THEMSELVES; "My kids will fend for themselves!".
Come on! You full well know the drill.
Thankfully, they are a minority.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Closed Caption is a fine example if the sheeple who will buy into this rehashing of the old scam from 2008. He won't even care to notice that the gap has widened under his hero Obama.

Pred is a fine example of someone who makes assumptions and ends up looking like an asshole.

What scam? You dont even know

I noticed the gap widened. Have you? Obama the liberal socialist as you call him has made people MORE money and you still think hes some sort of ultra liberal.

Now thats what you call ignoring the evidence for the talking points. Pred believes that a socialist makes the rich more money isnt that right Pred. Tell everyone how this liberal is making the rich money and how Obama hates the rich you dummy

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Perhaps that is why you sound like an idiot.

Dont dodge now dumbass.

Finish your point. Obama hates the rich and is such a socialist that the income gap has widened under his watch.

Is that what you're saying shit stain?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Not really. They made their play. He countered. They had a choice. Their choice affected their lives. All of life is choice and we are the only ones who can choose for ourselves.

Apparently, telling someone when they get hired that if they strike, they'll get fired and then actually following through on that statement is viewed by leftists as cruel.

 

[rightwinger]

With income and wealth disparity....whats done is done and what is yours is yours

But why should the government continue policies that lead to wealth accumulation in a small sector?

We need more programs that assist low level working Americans and fewer that assist the wealthy

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ask these idiots why Obama the socialist rich hating liberal has made the rich richer?


Then watch them scurry