Income Inequality: FOX NEWS POLL is a joke.

[protectionist]

I'm on an iPad so just do a quick Google.
Fox is doing something wrong to get maybe 10% of their base.

You may be correct, but no source/link ?

Can't do it with an iPad.

Whatever.

 

[JimH52]

FOX knows who holds their purse strings. They have to throw in some completely insane partisan sh*t every now and then. It just is there so the old man, Murdoch, smiles while he is pushing his morning BM.

 

[Jarhead]

One of the things that people who are sanguine about income inequity like to explain is the following"

There is NO PIE, and just because somebody makes more does not mean somebody else must make less

They are correct about that, there is no set amount of wealth.

But here the point ABOUT INCOME INEQUITY they miss

EVERY DOLLAR IS IN COMPETITION WITH EVERY OTHER DOLLAR TO OWN THAT WHICH IS OWNABLE.

So while it IS true that the pie can be expanding, remember that that fabulous economy pie can ALSO be shrinking.

And remember also that your paltry dollars ARE IN COMPETITION with all other dollars to buy the stuff you need.

That means that YES wealth inequity matters and it matter a WHOLE LOT.

Really?

So then the top income earners...the 1%.....must be the drivers of the cost of goods and servers....

Interesting.

The demand of 1% of the consumers is more important to the suppliers of the goods and services than the remaining 99%.

I mean.....no offense.....but that is completely ridiculous.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh get over it... one out of the five majors leans conservative. The other four are nothing more than propaganda departments of the Democrat party

 

[protectionist]

Great.. just what we needed.. another fake conservative bullshit artist like Jakey Fakey and G5000.

HA HA> Got a problem ? Let's hear it. Name calling won't solve it.

Name calling? Nah... just pegging you for what you are. I know NO conservatives who give any fucking credence whatsoever to this bullshit, trumped up crap that you libs/progressives call income inequality... people make different incomes, people have different talents, levels of motivation, etc. Not to mention we live in a society that now has a norm of living on unemployment for 5 years.. and counting... 1/6 of Americans living on the dole.... this is what you libs/progressives have endorsed.. and you're now outraged that the disparity between the achievers and the slackers has widened?

Great job of making a fool out of yourself. Me a lib/progressive ? HA HA HA!! I can just see the actual lib/progressives on this forum gagging just about now (after the vicious battles I've had with them). Thanks for the laugh, though.

EARTH TO SOGGY: Next to many of my positions om immigration, Muslim terrorism, Islamization, affirmative action, death penalty, etc, you might come out looking like Hillary Clinton.

As for what you think you "know", you may "know" this >> that the overwhelming majority of the American people support tax increases on the rich, some polls showing 76-81%, and I can assure you the lib/progressives aren't 76-81% of the population, or anything close to it. This includes plenty of Republicans, many of whom are Eisenhower Conservatives like me, who lived through the Eisenhower years of high taxes on the rich (91-92%) from the most Conservative president we've had, and who detest the ludicrous Reaganist notion that small, weak govt with low taxes & low spending is good for America. NO, it is only good for a tiny % of the population that is filthy rich, and it is harmful to National Security, which it deprives of the things the country needs to keep itself SECURE (FBI agents, CIA, DEA, border patrol officers, Mexican border double fence, immigration courts & jails, airport security officers, lawyers to battle the ACLU, SEIU, SPLC, La Raza, and other ultra-liberal loon groups, etc)

It is YOUR fake, Reaganist conservatism that is most friendly to the lib/progressives. Why do you think we have 12 million illegal alien invaders in this country (AKA VOTES for Democrats), swiping jobs away from 8 million unemployed Americans ? It's because of YOUR low tax, low spend, small, weak govt policies that prevents us from deporting the whole stinking bunch of them - as Eisenhower did in Operation Wetback in 1954 (32 years before your hero Reagan gave them amnesty).

You have just been deluded into thinking that protecting the rich from taxation is a conservative trait. FALSE! It has NOTHING to do with conservatism. In fact, it goes in the wrong direction, to assist the liberals with what they want.

So you think I'm not a conservative ? HA HA HA. Clink the links, my boy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/321591-shouldn-t-islam-be-banned-in-the-usa.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/334662-obama-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/europ...r-britain-to-reinstate-the-death-penalty.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...ns-using-the-irs-to-scam-the-us-taxpayer.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...ust-gave-amnesty-to-illegal-aliens-again.html

 

[protectionist]

Income inequality? Here's where I've got the problem. Some of these corporations pay their CEO's millions of dollars in salary AND stock options. Then these idiots run the companies into the ground. Case in point: Hostess and JC Penny. Then the companies pay them millions more dollars when they fire them. I guess they call that a 'golden parachute.' What ever they call it, I call it ignorance of the highest order.

But here's where I've got another problem. I do not support government intervention. Tell me when the government has actually done something about a problem without creating a thousand larger, different problems. Case in point: The war on poverty gave rise to the death of the African-American family, etc.

What I do support are Board of Directors getting their act together and actually hiring a CEO based upon what he does for a sane wage and benefits. If you trash the company, we fire you, AND you don't get paid.

When it come to the subject of government programs and if they work well. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the particular program and how it is done.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oh come on, Fox News. I'm talking to you directly now. I've supported your positions on a multiple of things >> death penalty, Afghanistan, immigration, Islamization, Muslim terrorism, law enforcement, stop & frisk, affirmative action, etc. I'm as conservative as anybody in America.

But to equate a Fox News poll with the preferences of the American people, is a stretch, to say the least. The Fox poll shows a distinct disapproval for Obama's handling of the issue of income inequality (52% disapprove). And when asked >> if someone makes a lot of money, does that mean someone else has to make less ? A whopping 84% said no.

But that's Fox News folks, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Fox News watchers are conservative, and in today's world (very unfortunately ) that means most of them are also Reaganists, who have no objection to income inequality, who have no objection to the preposterously low federal minimum wage we currently have, and who oppose tax increases on the super rich (which 3/4 of the American people support).

Monica Crowley, interviewed by Martha McCallum, this morning on the show America's newsroom, did herself a disservice by equating the Fox News poll with the overall attitude of the American people (which clearly supports tax increases on the rich). I've supported and liked Monica's positions for quite some time. I really liked it when she once mentioned the need for US troops to be in Afghanistan, to be in position to move into Pakistan to secure the Pakistani nuclear warheads, if the govt there were to fall. So I have nothing against Monica, in fact I'm a fan of hers. I just think this report was a bit over the top, and not healthy for the prestige of everyone at Fox News.

How about providing a link to your alleged poll so we can actually view and comment on it.

 

[Erand7899]

One of the things that people who are sanguine about income inequity like to explain is the following"

There is NO PIE, and just because somebody makes more does not mean somebody else must make less

They are correct about that, there is no set amount of wealth.

But here the point ABOUT INCOME INEQUITY they miss

EVERY DOLLAR IS IN COMPETITION WITH EVERY OTHER DOLLAR TO OWN THAT WHICH IS OWNABLE.

So while it IS true that the pie can be expanding, remember that that fabulous economy pie can ALSO be shrinking.

And remember also that your paltry dollars ARE IN COMPETITION with all other dollars to buy the stuff you need.

That means that YES wealth inequity matters and it matter a WHOLE LOT.

What nonsense! The wealthy do not eat more bread, beans, or pork chops than any of the other 320 million people in this nation. Consequently, they pose little, if any, impact on how much you pay for groceries. They might affect the prices of fancy cars and mansions, but very few wage earners are competing in those markets. Land values rise because there is a finite amount of land, and an ever growing population that wants and/or needs some of that land.

Whether the economic pie is growing, or shrinking, you have the ability, in a capitalistic economy to create your own wealth. An individual's ability to create wealth is almost solely dependent upon his/her's own talents, knowledge, skills, creativity, and work ethic.

 

[editec]

One of the things that people who are sanguine about income inequity like to explain is the following"

There is NO PIE, and just because somebody makes more does not mean somebody else must make less

They are correct about that, there is no set amount of wealth.

But here the point ABOUT INCOME INEQUITY they miss

EVERY DOLLAR IS IN COMPETITION WITH EVERY OTHER DOLLAR TO OWN THAT WHICH IS OWNABLE.

So while it IS true that the pie can be expanding, remember that that fabulous economy pie can ALSO be shrinking.

And remember also that your paltry dollars ARE IN COMPETITION with all other dollars to buy the stuff you need.

That means that YES wealth inequity matters and it matter a WHOLE LOT.

Really?

Yes

So then the top income earners...the 1%.....must be the drivers of the cost of goods and servers....

Drivers? Yes if you mean that they are generally the suppliers. I've never been comfortable with the 1% meme. It invites people to stop thinking clearly

Interesting.

Interesting? Elementary, if anything.

The demand of 1% of the consumers is more important to the suppliers of the goods and services than the remaining 99%.

How you arrive at this non sequter froim the above I am not sure

I mean.....no offense.....but that is completely ridiculous.

No offense taken.

After all nothing you posted had anything to do with my post.

 

[Toro]

The Fox poll shows a distinct disapproval for Obama's handling of the issue of income inequality (52% disapprove). And when asked >> if someone makes a lot of money, does that mean someone else has to make less ? A whopping 84% said no.

Absolutely and totally correct.

It's good to see the American people are smart about this.

I applaud you, America.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh come on, Fox News. I'm talking to you directly now. I've supported your positions on a multiple of things >> death penalty, Afghanistan, immigration, Islamization, Muslim terrorism, law enforcement, stop & frisk, affirmative action, etc. I'm as conservative as anybody in America.

But to equate a Fox News poll with the preferences of the American people, is a stretch, to say the least. The Fox poll shows a distinct disapproval for Obama's handling of the issue of income inequality (52% disapprove). And when asked >> if someone makes a lot of money, does that mean someone else has to make less ? A whopping 84% said no.

But that's Fox News folks, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Fox News watchers are conservative, and in today's world (very unfortunately ) that means most of them are also Reaganists, who have no objection to income inequality, who have no objection to the preposterously low federal minimum wage we currently have, and who oppose tax increases on the super rich (which 3/4 of the American people support).

Monica Crowley, interviewed by Martha McCallum, this morning on the show America's newsroom, did herself a disservice by equating the Fox News poll with the overall attitude of the American people (which clearly supports tax increases on the rich). I've supported and liked Monica's positions for quite some time. I really liked it when she once mentioned the need for US troops to be in Afghanistan, to be in position to move into Pakistan to secure the Pakistani nuclear warheads, if the govt there were to fall. So I have nothing against Monica, in fact I'm a fan of hers. I just think this report was a bit over the top, and not healthy for the prestige of everyone at Fox News.

Uh . . . . . hey dingdong. When FOX News does a poll, they don't just call FOX news viewers. They call random viewers just like every other pollster.

Thanks for the laugh though. I'll be looking for your posts in the future whenever I need a good chuckle.

 

[bripat9643]

Fox News is complete garbage. It always has been.

So what garbage are you watching? Based on your posts, you are obviously watching some real trash.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Oh come on, Fox News. I'm talking to you directly now. I've supported your positions on a multiple of things >> death penalty, Afghanistan, immigration, Islamization, Muslim terrorism, law enforcement, stop & frisk, affirmative action, etc. I'm as conservative as anybody in America.

But to equate a Fox News poll with the preferences of the American people, is a stretch, to say the least. The Fox poll shows a distinct disapproval for Obama's handling of the issue of income inequality (52% disapprove). And when asked >> if someone makes a lot of money, does that mean someone else has to make less ? A whopping 84% said no.

But that's Fox News folks, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Fox News watchers are conservative, and in today's world (very unfortunately ) that means most of them are also Reaganists, who have no objection to income inequality, who have no objection to the preposterously low federal minimum wage we currently have, and who oppose tax increases on the super rich (which 3/4 of the American people support).

Monica Crowley, interviewed by Martha McCallum, this morning on the show America's newsroom, did herself a disservice by equating the Fox News poll with the overall attitude of the American people (which clearly supports tax increases on the rich). I've supported and liked Monica's positions for quite some time. I really liked it when she once mentioned the need for US troops to be in Afghanistan, to be in position to move into Pakistan to secure the Pakistani nuclear warheads, if the govt there were to fall. So I have nothing against Monica, in fact I'm a fan of hers. I just think this report was a bit over the top, and not healthy for the prestige of everyone at Fox News.

Shouldn't you be pitching a tent in a park somewhere?

Ps. You say you're talking directly to fox news but THIS ISNT A FOX NEWS WEBSITE

 

[protectionist]

Oh come on, Fox News. I'm talking to you directly now. I've supported your positions on a multiple of things >> death penalty, Afghanistan, immigration, Islamization, Muslim terrorism, law enforcement, stop & frisk, affirmative action, etc. I'm as conservative as anybody in America.

But to equate a Fox News poll with the preferences of the American people, is a stretch, to say the least. The Fox poll shows a distinct disapproval for Obama's handling of the issue of income inequality (52% disapprove). And when asked >> if someone makes a lot of money, does that mean someone else has to make less ? A whopping 84% said no.

But that's Fox News folks, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Fox News watchers are conservative, and in today's world (very unfortunately ) that means most of them are also Reaganists, who have no objection to income inequality, who have no objection to the preposterously low federal minimum wage we currently have, and who oppose tax increases on the super rich (which 3/4 of the American people support).

Monica Crowley, interviewed by Martha McCallum, this morning on the show America's newsroom, did herself a disservice by equating the Fox News poll with the overall attitude of the American people (which clearly supports tax increases on the rich). I've supported and liked Monica's positions for quite some time. I really liked it when she once mentioned the need for US troops to be in Afghanistan, to be in position to move into Pakistan to secure the Pakistani nuclear warheads, if the govt there were to fall. So I have nothing against Monica, in fact I'm a fan of hers. I just think this report was a bit over the top, and not healthy for the prestige of everyone at Fox News.

How about providing a link to your alleged poll so we can actually view and comment on it.

I've provided them numerous times in other threads but it's OK. A fair request . Here they are >>

23 Polls Say People Support Higher Taxes to Reduce the Deficit | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds Support Lacking for Entitlement Reductions

Scroll down to question # 26 in the Wall St. Journal poll.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw]Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube[/ame]


these are the type of people who run Fox

 

[Truthmatters]

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



January 14, 2013

do you see the date on that article?


how is it the right just keeps pretending they have not been caught over and over again CHEATING?

 

[protectionist]

One of the things that people who are sanguine about income inequity like to explain is the following"

There is NO PIE, and just because somebody makes more does not mean somebody else must make less

They are correct about that, there is no set amount of wealth.

But here the point ABOUT INCOME INEQUITY they miss

EVERY DOLLAR IS IN COMPETITION WITH EVERY OTHER DOLLAR TO OWN THAT WHICH IS OWNABLE.

So while it IS true that the pie can be expanding, remember that that fabulous economy pie can ALSO be shrinking.

And remember also that your paltry dollars ARE IN COMPETITION with all other dollars to buy the stuff you need.

That means that YES wealth inequity matters and it matter a WHOLE LOT.

What nonsense! The wealthy do not eat more bread, beans, or pork chops than any of the other 320 million people in this nation. Consequently, they pose little, if any, impact on how much you pay for groceries. They might affect the prices of fancy cars and mansions, but very few wage earners are competing in those markets. Land values rise because there is a finite amount of land, and an ever growing population that wants and/or needs some of that land.

Whether the economic pie is growing, or shrinking, you have the ability, in a capitalistic economy to create your own wealth. An individual's ability to create wealth is almost solely dependent upon his/her's own talents, knowledge, skills, creativity, and work ethic.

I would tend to agree, since I started a business on practically nothing , and succeeded and expanded. However, I would still have to say that generally, these admirable things are all less of a factor than one thing >> MONEY (start-up capital)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Today, 11:45 AM
Remove user from ignore listTruthmatters
This message is hidden because Truthmatters is on your ignore list.
View PostUnread Today, 11:46 AM
Remove user from ignore listTruthmatters
This message is hidden because Truthmatters is on your ignore list.
View PostUnread Today, 11:47 AM
Remove user from ignore listTruthmatters
This message is hidden because Truthmatters is on your ignore list.

Effective use of the ignore feature ^^^

 

[Truthmatters]

they use Fox to LIE to the stupid

 

[protectionist]

Oh come on, Fox News. I'm talking to you directly now. I've supported your positions on a multiple of things >> death penalty, Afghanistan, immigration, Islamization, Muslim terrorism, law enforcement, stop & frisk, affirmative action, etc. I'm as conservative as anybody in America.

But to equate a Fox News poll with the preferences of the American people, is a stretch, to say the least. The Fox poll shows a distinct disapproval for Obama's handling of the issue of income inequality (52% disapprove). And when asked >> if someone makes a lot of money, does that mean someone else has to make less ? A whopping 84% said no.

But that's Fox News folks, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Fox News watchers are conservative, and in today's world (very unfortunately ) that means most of them are also Reaganists, who have no objection to income inequality, who have no objection to the preposterously low federal minimum wage we currently have, and who oppose tax increases on the super rich (which 3/4 of the American people support).

Monica Crowley, interviewed by Martha McCallum, this morning on the show America's newsroom, did herself a disservice by equating the Fox News poll with the overall attitude of the American people (which clearly supports tax increases on the rich). I've supported and liked Monica's positions for quite some time. I really liked it when she once mentioned the need for US troops to be in Afghanistan, to be in position to move into Pakistan to secure the Pakistani nuclear warheads, if the govt there were to fall. So I have nothing against Monica, in fact I'm a fan of hers. I just think this report was a bit over the top, and not healthy for the prestige of everyone at Fox News.

Shouldn't you be pitching a tent in a park somewhere?

Ps. You say you're talking directly to fox news but THIS ISNT A FOX NEWS WEBSITE

1. I don't care what it is. I talk to whomever I choose to talk to, from wherever I choose to talk.

2. Why would I pitch a tent ? Haven't done that since I was in the Army.