Income Inequailty Rhetoric is Class Warfare

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

You forgot to tell us what happens when the Haves get control.

 

[Indeependent]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

And when representatives of the Haves get control, you have an oligarchy. And then it collapses.

Bingo!
The reason we are taught history is so that when we repeat it we know exactly how to do it.
The reason some students don't pay attention is because they can't do a damned thing about it anyway.

 

[G.T.]

Maybe our next world collapse will shift human consciousness toward modesty, love and mutual interest.




Naaaaw, i doubt it.

 

[AceRothstein]

The wealthy started the war and are winning. It is only recent that the lower income folks are fighting back.

 

[g5000]

The Right and the Left follow their usual predictable patterns here.

The Left:

1. Income inequality is a problem. We must do something.

2. Raising taxes is something.

3. We must raise taxes!


The Right:

Problem? What problem? There's no problem!




They are both wrong.

 

[Indeependent]

Where's my list?
Just 5.

 

[jasonnfree]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

How did socialism collapse Detroit? De industrialization was the cause and Detroit didn't have enough diversity to keep it going. Same thing happened in Seattle about 40 years ago after Boeing did huge layoffs. Will the last person in Seattle turn of the lights was the saying. Times got better and Boeing started hiring again thanks in part to huge government contracts You know, the same thing that made conservative anti socialist dick cheney a multimillionaire. So I guess you could say that socialism rebuilt Seattle and Halliburton.

 

[MACAULAY]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

You forgot to tell us what happens when the Haves get control.

...........................................

Well, then you get Capitalism, which consists of the Haves, and those who ask the chance to become Haves, by a full grant of Liberty.

Most recent prominent example----the United States of America.....which has for much of its existence been the greatest social compact which has thus far existed on this planet.

Yes, the happy concurrence of Freedom and the Profit Incentive...which the founding fathers left for us...has in fact resulted in the greatest society ever in the history of mankind.

Its chief enemy is Socialism.....where people revert to their natural state of "Subsistence."

Mere Subsistence is in our genes. It is the way we lived for most of our time as humans. If you assure Subsistence through the government...and in this rich country it has come to mean, not just food, clothes, housing, but a used car, t.v., Obama phone, and some cigarettes and beer money....then you will find that a huge number of people will accept it happily....and just sit on the porch.

It is the sad discovery Socialism has made in every place it has had its way...and when the confiscated money runs out, they borrow, and when the borrowed money runs out...it collapses.

Socialism always fails.

Capitalism risks failure if it does not control its chief flaw...which is, of course is Greed. For at least 130 years...our chief problem with controlling Greed...has come from New England...more specifically New York.

It is pretty out of control today...and it is up to Obama and Holder to do something about it but they don't...out of fear they will cut the money TO THEM off...in other words, Wall Street owns them as it does that dick, Schumer and a bunch of other Liberal assholes.

You Liberals need to clean up your own backyard, and you need to do it without saddling the Heartland with Socialism.

 

[jasonnfree]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

You forgot to tell us what happens when the Haves get control.

...........................................

Well, then you get Capitalism, which consists of the Haves, and those who ask the chance to become Haves, by a full grant of Liberty.

Most recent prominent example----the United States of America.....which has for much of its existence been the greatest social compact which has thus far existed on this planet.

Yes, the happy concurrence of Freedom and the Profit Incentive...which the founding fathers left for us...has in fact resulted in the greatest society ever in the history of mankind.

Its chief enemy is Socialism.....where people revert to their natural state of "Subsistence."

Mere Subsistence is in our genes. It is the way we lived for most of our time as humans. If you assure Subsistence through the government...and in this rich country it has come to mean, not just food, clothes, housing, but a used car, t.v., Obama phone, and some cigarettes and beer money....then you will find that a huge number of people will accept it happily....and just sit on the porch.

It is the sad discovery Socialism has made in every place it has had its way...and when the confiscated money runs out, they borrow, and when the borrowed money runs out...it collapses.

Socialism always fails.

Capitalism risks failure if it does not control its chief flaw...which is, of course is Greed. For at least 130 years...our chief problem with controlling Greed...has come from New England...more specifically New York.

It is pretty out of control today...and it is up to Obama and Holder to do something about it but they don't are afraid they will cut the money TO THEM off...in other words, Wall Street owns them as it does that dick Schumer and a bunch of other Liberals assholes.

You Liberals need to clean up your own backyard, and you nee to do it without saddling the Heartland with Socialism.

"Yes, the happy concurrence of Freedom and the Profit Incentive?" You say. You didn't factor in slavery, the opposite of the great Freedom you're exalting. How about slavery which existed in this country for hundreds of years? Think the profit these capitalist heroes of yours made would have been so great if they were forced to pay market wages instead?

 

[TRFjr]

two pages and not one person has given a convincing argument as matter of fact no argument why would you need to take from one to give to another to bring others out of poverty

Income inequity rhetoric is just propaganda that only works on the ignorant. used by the elites to rally the useful idiots

 

[G.T.]

Yea....except for the fact that its real, widening & unsustainable.

 

[TRFjr]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

How did socialism collapse Detroit? De industrialization was the cause and Detroit didn't have enough diversity to keep it going. Same thing happened in Seattle about 40 years ago after Boeing did huge layoffs. Will the last person in Seattle turn of the lights was the saying. Times got better and Boeing started hiring again thanks in part to huge government contracts You know, the same thing that made conservative anti socialist dick cheney a multimillionaire. So I guess you could say that socialism rebuilt Seattle and Halliburton.

first of all the auto industry didn't close up in Detroit because they went out of business or because auto sales decreased. the industry left because Detroit's socialist welfare programs raised taxes to the point and the union demanded wages it was more profitable else where. the American auto industry was forced to compete with foreign companies and either they had to adapt and cut cost or go under

 

[bripat9643]

What's wrong with class warfare, exactly?

You mean what's wrong with looting people?

We know you don't understand.

 

[bripat9643]

Class warfare perpetuates victimization.

But that's its intent.

So working people fighting for better wages and working conditions are creating victims?

Of whom?

You mean leftists and union thugs fighting to loot the income of their fellow Americans. Yes, they are creating victim, just I would create a victim if I whacked someone over the head and took his wallet.

 

[MACAULAY]

You forgot to tell us what happens when the Haves get control.

...........................................

Well, then you get Capitalism, which consists of the Haves, and those who ask the chance to become Haves, by a full grant of Liberty.

Most recent prominent example----the United States of America.....which has for much of its existence been the greatest social compact which has thus far existed on this planet.

Yes, the happy concurrence of Freedom and the Profit Incentive...which the founding fathers left for us...has in fact resulted in the greatest society ever in the history of mankind.

Its chief enemy is Socialism.....where people revert to their natural state of "Subsistence."

Mere Subsistence is in our genes. It is the way we lived for most of our time as humans. If you assure Subsistence through the government...and in this rich country it has come to mean, not just food, clothes, housing, but a used car, t.v., Obama phone, and some cigarettes and beer money....then you will find that a huge number of people will accept it happily....and just sit on the porch.

It is the sad discovery Socialism has made in every place it has had its way...and when the confiscated money runs out, they borrow, and when the borrowed money runs out...it collapses.

Socialism always fails.

Capitalism risks failure if it does not control its chief flaw...which is, of course is Greed. For at least 130 years...our chief problem with controlling Greed...has come from New England...more specifically New York.

It is pretty out of control today...and it is up to Obama and Holder to do something about it but they don't are afraid they will cut the money TO THEM off...in other words, Wall Street owns them as it does that dick Schumer and a bunch of other Liberals assholes.

You Liberals need to clean up your own backyard, and you nee to do it without saddling the Heartland with Socialism.

"Yes, the happy concurrence of Freedom and the Profit Incentive?" You say. You didn't factor in slavery, the opposite of the great Freedom you're exalting. How about slavery which existed in this country for hundreds of years? Think the profit these capitalist heroes of yours made would have been so great if they were forced to pay market wages instead?

........................................................

Slavery was a sad chapter. It was introduced onto the continent mostly by the Brittish but to a great extent by New England merchants in Boston and New York.

I don't guess you ever wondered why Ralph Waldo Emerson was able to gad about jappering about Transcendalism. It was because he ancestor Mr. Waldo made a fortune running in slaves. His main ship was named the Africa. And he brought slaves to Massachusetts. Yes, they tied out slavery, but it just wasn't profitable...and the result was Massachusets had to pass a law that people couldn't abandon their slaves to stave in the street...because that's what was happening when they found they weren't profitable.

Jefferson tried to get rid of slavery and lost...and he later wrote in a letter that South Carolina was against his proposal, but also New York and Massachusetts because they made money shipping them into the country.

Slavery is in the past, fortunately. You bringing it up is an attempt to change the subject because you have no answer for the issues raised in my post.

 

[bripat9643]

Question why does a income gap need to be closed to bring people out of poverty?
Income inequality is a hollow rhetoric that its only purpose is to promote class warfare and income redistribution
Wealth is not finite it can be created there is not one pie that needs to be divided evenly

I will give an example how income inequality is a failed argument
lets say the poverty level is 20,000 per year. you have an individual who makes 15k a year and you want to bring him out of poverty. You have another individual who makes 100k a years so you have a 85k a year income gap between the two. Here is the question
is it better to take 10k from the 100k a year individual and give it to the 15k a year individual there for bring him out of poverty and establishing a 65k income gap, or is it better for the 15k a year individual create his own wealth and make 10k more a year to bring him up to 25k.
According to using a closure of a income gap as a measure of success it is best to take away from the 100k a year individual then to have the 15k individual create his own wealth because you would have an income gap of 65K instead of the 75k that you would have if he created his own wealth

You see why Income inequality/income gap is a hollow rhetoric a useless statistic that does nothing but create class envy and warfare

What if the guy who earns $100K a year earns it by means of a monopoly on gasoline and charges the $15K guy $20 for a gallon?

Perhaps this will clue you in to the difference between a natural concentration of wealth and an unnatural one. What we have today is an unnatural concentration of wealth.

Who has a monopoly on gasoline? The only monopolies in this world are all government creations.

 

[Indeependent]

Class warfare perpetuates victimization.

But that's its intent.

So working people fighting for better wages and working conditions are creating victims?

Of whom?

You mean leftists and union thugs fighting to loot the income of their fellow Americans. Yes, they are creating victim, just I would create a victim if I whacked someone over the head and took his wallet.

I would say there's problems with both Unions and Corporate Robber Barons.
Would you?

 

[Richard-H]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

You forgot to tell us what happens when the Haves get control.

...........................................

Well, then you get Capitalism, which consists of the Haves, and those who ask the chance to become Haves, by a full grant of Liberty.

Most recent prominent example----the United States of America.....which has for much of its existence been the greatest social compact which has thus far existed on this planet.

Yes, the happy concurrence of Freedom and the Profit Incentive...which the founding fathers left for us...has in fact resulted in the greatest society ever in the history of mankind.

Its chief enemy is Socialism.....where people revert to their natural state of "Subsistence."

Mere Subsistence is in our genes. It is the way we lived for most of our time as humans. If you assure Subsistence through the government...and in this rich country it has come to mean, not just food, clothes, housing, but a used car, t.v., Obama phone, and some cigarettes and beer money....then you will find that a huge number of people will accept it happily....and just sit on the porch.

It is the sad discovery Socialism has made in every place it has had its way...and when the confiscated money runs out, they borrow, and when the borrowed money runs out...it collapses.

Socialism always fails.

Capitalism risks failure if it does not control its chief flaw...which is, of course is Greed. For at least 130 years...our chief problem with controlling Greed...has come from New England...more specifically New York.

It is pretty out of control today...and it is up to Obama and Holder to do something about it but they don't...out of fear they will cut the money TO THEM off...in other words, Wall Street owns them as it does that dick, Schumer and a bunch of other Liberal assholes.

You Liberals need to clean up your own backyard, and you need to do it without saddling the Heartland with Socialism.

That's weird, it was my understanding that when the U.S. was founded Americans considered their primary enemy to be MONARCHY, not socialism. I doubt that the concept of socialism even existed at the time of the American revolution. If you believe that anti-socialism or capitalism is a founding principal of the U.S., then apparently you've been victimized by cold war brainwashing.

You are dead wrong in saying that "Socialism always fails". Socialism is alive and well in Europe. As a matter of fact quasi-socialism worked quite well in the U.S. between 1950-1980.

On the other hand capitalism has been a complete failure. It was a failure throughout the world in the 18th century - which is why liberalism and socialism were invented. (remember: "Necessity is the mother of invention").

You also apparently do not understand what capitalism (or socialism) is. (Another product of your cold war brain washing):

Capitalism is using money to make money. Wall St. and the New York financial sector are capitalists.

"Main St" is partially capitalistic - ownership of asset and profitability constitute capitalism, but the sale of goods and services is not in and of itself capitalism.

The difference between "Main St." and "Wall St." is that "Main St." actually gives something back to society - they produce. "Wall St." just sucks up money without contributing anything back.

Greed is the heart of capitalism, so when you say that the problem is the New york financial sector's "greed" is our problem, you're saying that "Capitalism", in its purist form, is the problem.

 

[velvtacheeze]

If the free market was so awesome at creating wealth as wingnuts insist, then where's all the wealth? Why is it so concentrated among the few? It's because your theory is bunkum.

The free market is great at creating wealth, but not for the many.

Government needs to step in and make sure that incomes are more evenly distributed. I'm not saying everyone should make the same income, so spare me already with those stupid charges.

 

[Indeependent]

If the free market was so awesome at creating wealth as wingnuts insist, then where's all the wealth? Why is it so concentrated among the few? It's because your theory is bunkum.

The free market is great at creating wealth, but not for the many.

Government needs to step in and make sure that incomes are more evenly distributed. I'm not saying everyone should make the same income, so spare me already with those stupid charges.

The sum result of government intervention since 1980 has been to devalue labor in favor of monetization.
In other words, the only way to keep the economy going is to create the impression that something is worth more than it's worth.