Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong.
I didn't make the claim that all folks who babble about "income inequality" DID say that a surgeon should make the same as a laborer. But the meaning of "income equality" does suggest that such a...absurd utopian state of affairs is what the many...seek.
You are busy telling the world what income inequality (allegedly) does NOT mean.
Fine. Now define what it DOES mean. Cite it. Link it...It is quite clear that the meaning I ascribed to it more closely resembled THEIR idiot ignorant thinking.
Madman, arguing with you is like arguing with a chair leg. Now you claim imaginary suggestions validate tour fantasy world?
you want a cite/link war? I suggest you start citing and linking...
Dainty, you pussy. Your refusal to man up is -- standard.
And, it's noted again.
It's casual. I offered the challenge precisely because I doubt you have any reliable definition for that absurd term you and your fellow drones use and overuse so often, you evasive putz.
You and the fucking morons who agreed with this post (gallantwarrior (Today), kwc57 (Today), The Rabbi (Today)) live in a fantasy world.
Throwing out absurdist bullshit may make you feel better, but all it does is expose your ignorance and stupidity.
No one has ever proposed a surgeon make the same as a laborer or the other way around. You just make shit up.
And yet, you seem to think that the surgeon should surrender some portion of his earnings so that the laborer can be provided the same standard of living as the surgeon...
nope, and it is evident that reading and comprehension are not your strong suit.
I will patronize your ignorance: Taxes levied for the purposes of social welfare programs are mostly aimed at helping the poor who live below the standard of the laborer.
The income inequality gap argument is about the laborer's salary/income and standard of living falling backward, being stagnant, or growing so slowly as to have the effect of going backwards...all while the most wealthy see their standard of living grow wildly.
Notice I did NOT mention salary/income when mentioning the most wealthy. Wealth is NOT really earned income.
Adam Smith said it best: But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
Adam Smith said it best: Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low.
Madman, arguing with you is like arguing with a chair leg. Now you claim imaginary suggestions validate tour fantasy world?
you want a cite/link war? I suggest you start citing and linking...
Dainty, you pussy. Your refusal to man up is -- standard.
And, it's noted again.
It's casual. I offered the challenge precisely because I doubt you have any reliable definition for that absurd term you and your fellow drones use and overuse so often, you evasive putz.
you throw around opinion and fantasy as if it is revealed truth.
it's ridiculous. Dante cites and links to most everything. fact
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
Notice it doesn't say that it would tax the filthy, evil, rich bastards to care for those huddled masses cradle to grave. We offer everyone the same thing, an equal opportunity to make something of themselves and for themselves........even to become filthy, evil, rich bastards.
You really do live in some fantasy land inside that noodle of yours if you think anything in this pyramid scheme is "equal opportunity," or "Fair."
And yet, you seem to think that the surgeon should surrender some portion of his earnings so that the laborer can be provided the same standard of living as the surgeon...
nope, and it is evident that reading and comprehension are not your strong suit.
I will patronize your ignorance: Taxes levied for the purposes of social welfare programs are mostly aimed at helping the poor who live below the standard of the laborer.
The income inequality gap argument is about the laborer's salary/income and standard of living falling backward, being stagnant, or growing so slowly as to have the effect of going backwards...all while the most wealthy see their standard of living grow wildly.
Notice I did NOT mention salary/income when mentioning the most wealthy. Wealth is NOT really earned income.
Adam Smith said it best: But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
Adam Smith said it best: Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low.
Dainty is now reduced to complaining about an inequality gap.
Think it through.
If you close an inequality GAP, you increase inequality.
In any case, Dainty's inability to think logically notwithstanding, it is still true that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Notice it doesn't say that it would tax the filthy, evil, rich bastards to care for those huddled masses cradle to grave. We offer everyone the same thing, an equal opportunity to make something of themselves and for themselves........even to become filthy, evil, rich bastards.
You really do live in some fantasy land inside that noodle of yours if you think anything in this pyramid scheme is "equal opportunity," or "Fair."
CAN'T never did anything eeyore.
Life isn't fair. Sucks, doesn't it? Just get over that fact.
So, what does anyone of you who plans on voting for romney (richer than all previous 8 presidents COMBINED) think he is going to do for you the working man/woman?
Do you think he is going to reduce your tax rate to what he pays (15%)?
Do we all get to put our money in off-shore accounts, then keep it secret like he does?
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks we should have no government. Perhaps you could provide a link. I realize hyperbole is a standard element of partisan rhetoric, but I prefer intellectual honesty, myself.
I'm of the breed who thinks that government plays - or that should be, CAN play - a critical role of foundational support for our country. From military to health care, from education to infrastructure, from financial regulation to consumer protection. The questions, however, are the scope and cost of government, and the efficiency of government. The Left knee-jerks towards the notion that government should be the first answer to any question. The Right knee-jerks in the opposite direction.
So the question is finding balance, equilibrium. And in today's narcissistic, absolutist political environment, I ain't seeing much of that. But one thing that concerns me greatly is watching so many people (not just politicians) becoming more and more dependent on "someone else". I think that destroys people, families. And it doesn't take a great deal of effort to identify evidence of this, but it does require open eyes.
But to answer your question in context, I strongly believe that a life spent waiting for someone else, especially a bunch of professional politicians, to "make" your life "better" is a sad and wasted life, indeed. It's already destroyed millions of lives, generations of lives, and that trend does not appear to be reversing itself.
.
The left wants it all their way? How's that? I see/hear/read of no one on the right seeking compromise? Hell they refuse to vote or even debate on what they have authored or so-sponsored in the past.
The top 1% has more wealth than does the bottom 50+%. How many millions have been forced into poverty or are on the verge, while the upper crust continues to reap?
And yet, you seem to think that the surgeon should surrender some portion of his earnings so that the laborer can be provided the same standard of living as the surgeon...
nope, and it is evident that reading and comprehension are not your strong suit.
I will patronize your ignorance: Taxes levied for the purposes of social welfare programs are mostly aimed at helping the poor who live below the standard of the laborer.
The income inequality gap argument is about the laborer's salary/income and standard of living falling backward, being stagnant, or growing so slowly as to have the effect of going backwards...all while the most wealthy see their standard of living grow wildly.
Notice I did NOT mention salary/income when mentioning the most wealthy. Wealth is NOT really earned income.
Adam Smith said it best: But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
Adam Smith said it best: Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low.
Dainty is now reduced to complaining about an inequality gap.
Think it through.
If you close an inequality GAP, you increase inequality.
In any case, Dainty's inability to think logically notwithstanding, it is still true that a rising tide lifts all boats.
]
That's a nice theory.
When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
There is no "solution" to income equality required. Certainly not by gov't action. That is like providing a solution to inequality in piano performance by cutting off fingers from more talented practitioners.
There is no problem here that anyone can identify.
To expect this corporate run govt to do anything for anyone in the bottom 99% is dreaming and/or asleep.
Life isn't fair. Sucks, doesn't it? Just get over that fact.
Life isn't fair. Sucks, doesn't it? Just get over that fact.
Life isn't fair and no one here (at least I think) is advocating for total income equality across the entire country. Personally, I like the fact that I live in a nation where if I work hard, make smart decisions, I could become very wealthy.
However, I think its totally appropriate to explore the idea that EXCESSIVE greed and EXCESSIVE, concentrated wealth could be a bad thing for a nation. The fact is that the inequality gap is growing in the United States.
Keyword = growing.
I have absolutely no problem with there existing an income gap, however it just troubles and concerns me to see it continue to grow in an almost exponential fashion. Today, the top 1% may own 40% of all wealth in the nation, but tomorrow it could be 50%. Perhaps in 20 years that number could rise to 60-70%. Do you think it will be economically and socially beneficial to have a nation where 1% of the citizens horde 70% of all of the profit, all of the benefit that our great nation generates for themselves? I dont think thats a very good setup.
Our country is like a giant living body, and if you cut off oxygen to the legs, arms, ect, that body will begin to function less and less efficiently.
.
Life isn't fair. Sucks, doesn't it? Just get over that fact.
Life isn't fair and no one here (at least I think) is advocating for total income equality across the entire country. Personally, I like the fact that I live in a nation where if I work hard, make smart decisions, I could become very wealthy.
However, I think it’s totally appropriate to explore the idea that EXCESSIVE greed and EXCESSIVE, concentrated wealth could be a bad thing for a nation. The fact is that the inequality gap is growing in the United States.
Keyword = growing.
I have absolutely no problem with there existing an income gap, however it just troubles and concerns me to see it continue to grow in an almost exponential fashion. Today, the top 1% may own 40% of all wealth in the nation, but tomorrow it could be 50%. Perhaps in 20 years that number could rise to 60-70%. Do you think it will be economically and socially beneficial to have a nation where 1% of the citizens horde 70% of all of the profit, all of the benefit that our great nation generates for themselves? I don’t think that’s a very good setup.
Our country is like a giant living body, and if you cut off oxygen to the legs, arms, ect, that body will begin to function less and less efficiently.
.
I fully agree with much of what you just posted, especially the bolded line. The greed you refer to is kept alive and actively fed by those who we have voted to represent us, as well as the entities that buy them. As a matter-of-fact, if you "follow the money", you will not doubt find that the pot of gold at the end of that rainbow will be clutched most possessively by someone involved in government.
So, what does anyone of you who plans on voting for romney (richer than all previous 8 presidents COMBINED) think he is going to do for you the working man/woman?
Do you think he is going to reduce your tax rate to what he pays (15%)?
Do we all get to put our money in off-shore accounts, then keep it secret like he does?
Life isn't fair and no one here (at least I think) is advocating for total income equality across the entire country. Personally, I like the fact that I live in a nation where if I work hard, make smart decisions, I could become very wealthy.
However, I think its totally appropriate to explore the idea that EXCESSIVE greed and EXCESSIVE, concentrated wealth could be a bad thing for a nation. The fact is that the inequality gap is growing in the United States.
Keyword = growing.
I have absolutely no problem with there existing an income gap, however it just troubles and concerns me to see it continue to grow in an almost exponential fashion. Today, the top 1% may own 40% of all wealth in the nation, but tomorrow it could be 50%. Perhaps in 20 years that number could rise to 60-70%. Do you think it will be economically and socially beneficial to have a nation where 1% of the citizens horde - in a sense - 70% of all of the profit, all of the benefit that our great nation generates? Do you think that would make for a stable, cohesive nation?
I dont.
Our country is like a giant living body, and if you cut off oxygen to the legs, arms, ect, that body will begin to function less and less efficiently.
I'm not a huge supporter of extreme government wealth redistribution, but I DO THINK that we need to address the fact that our wealth is pooling and that we all might be better off if we could get some of that wealth better recirculated into the lower classes of society.
This is just opinion, but I think people have become greedier, and that this is being reflected negatively in nearly all areas of our culture. One example is the financial industry and the giant recession caused by careless pursuit of profit. Another is our political environment where it's no longer unethical for a Senator who's the head of the Defense Contracting Committee to hold a fundraiser directly with Defense Contracting Corporations. That shit would have never flown in the 1960's, but people wouldn't even take a second look today...
.
That's a nice theory.
When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Life isn't fair and no one here (at least I think) is advocating for total income equality across the entire country. Personally, I like the fact that I live in a nation where if I work hard, make smart decisions, I could become very wealthy.
However, I think its totally appropriate to explore the idea that EXCESSIVE greed and EXCESSIVE, concentrated wealth could be a bad thing for a nation. The fact is that the inequality gap is growing in the United States.
Keyword = growing.
I have absolutely no problem with there existing an income gap, however it just troubles and concerns me to see it continue to grow in an almost exponential fashion. Today, the top 1% may own 40% of all wealth in the nation, but tomorrow it could be 50%. Perhaps in 20 years that number could rise to 60-70%. Do you think it will be economically and socially beneficial to have a nation where 1% of the citizens horde 70% of all of the profit, all of the benefit that our great nation generates for themselves? I dont think thats a very good setup.
Our country is like a giant living body, and if you cut off oxygen to the legs, arms, ect, that body will begin to function less and less efficiently.
.
I fully agree with much of what you just posted, especially the bolded line. The greed you refer to is kept alive and actively fed by those who we have voted to represent us, as well as the entities that buy them. As a matter-of-fact, if you "follow the money", you will not doubt find that the pot of gold at the end of that rainbow will be clutched most possessively by someone involved in government.
Well, that's a good point, and one that I often try to get across to some of my "far left" pals. Sure, you want to raise taxes to help the poor, ect, but those dollars often will get funneled into some less-than-righteous causes, and/or lost in the mindless and unrefined bureaucracy.
If all of our elected officials were solid, ethical people that couldn't be swayed or bribed by large corporations and companies, I'd be much more willing to pay more in taxes.
But unfortunately, that's not the case. The MULTI BILLIONS of dollars going into this next election cycle (which is total insanity) come with many strings, indeed. I read somewhere that 1% of the super-PAC donors have managed to contribute 2/3rds of the total $$$s so far. People don't just 'give' money away... they generally want something in return...
.
