Republicans: why do you ignore the wealth inequality issue?

[Staidhup]

G5000,
You are aware of the differences between Annual, Current, and Unfunded Liabilities, as in debt, right? furthermore what is defined as Assets, right? and that these 1% or 2% rich folk don't own all these assets, right? You moron, no wonder this country is so fucked up, people like you spewing shit, they don't even have a clue about, actually have the right to vote!

 

[Staidhup]

To repeat, the top 1 percent are worth $18 trillion.

US federal debt is about $15 trillion.

See evidence on page 26.

What did you guys think they were worth, a few billion?

What comic book did you get these numbers from, the Obama coloring book? Regardless you still don't have a clue about basic accounting or what your talking about do you?

 

[Nosmo King]

Republicans ignore it as we feel that you need to earn it. Most of the poor are lazy and don't wish to pound the floor to advance them selfs.

Poor-think it should be handed to you=no wealth. You think life is a joke.
Rich-work hard and plan=more wealth!

Why should the people that work hard and are smart enough to save up give you their money?

What an ivory tower you have there! Your post reads as if you never actually lived a life at all. What are you? Young and naive or cruelly stupid?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm not averse to a flat rate for everyone ala Steve Forbes, as long as the exemptions are adequate. I mean by that that it should be high enough (for earner, spouse, kids and other dependants) that they can live a decent life even if they're receiving minimum wage. In most states they're already paying a lot in sales taxes just to eat and meet their other minimal requirements. But the flat rate must be final, no deductions credits etc. blah blah blah. This will never pass because you would be asking Congress to give up much of its power, not to mention they won't be getting all the kickbacks that they are now receiving. I should define the term kickback, it means there's someone who has a lot of money who will give a little of it to someone who has not so much to vote the way the monied individual wants them to. The poor and the middle class don't do kickbacks. As to the percentage that is fair, that would have to be variable based on the country's immediate as well as projected requirements, which are always subject to change (as when a certain party's President takes us into a stupid war for nothing). But nowadays I would guess that that would be somewhere around 20%, again ala Steve Forbes. Good enough?

Please stop with the minimum wage horse shit. Min wage jobs are not and never have been intended to support a family. So stop it.
Next...Even if the wealthiest people lose ALL of their income to the federal government, how pray tell, is that going to help min wage workers....Answer? NONE. Not one iota. In fact, if the government sees fit to confiscate a greater piece of the wealth of this country, it will only hurt every one else. First off fewer dollars in the marketplace means fewer people willing to or even having the capital to create jobs.
Now that we've scuttled any reason for your jealous rant.....Answer this question..
What would government do with all of the new so called "fair share" revenue?
Spend it wisely, or continue to throw it down the same rat holes it goes into now?
None of you flaming libs will answer this and any related questions because you do not have a valid answer. You cannot get past the fact that politicians when given power in the form of money will do as they have always and simply continue to spend it foolishly. They can do this as long as those politicians can continue to fool just enough of you to keep THEM in office.
When you can justify how the upper 25% pays well over half the federal tax burden is not a fair share, you come talk to me., Until then this 'fair share' issue is a bunch of class envy, class warfare tripe dreamed up by democrat operatives.
Above all... Stop whining and start donating YOUR money to those people for whom you feel sorry.
The arrogance of you people is incredible.
Keep you ******* grubby paws out of MY bank account...You want to become a charity organization, use YOUR OWN money.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The rich don't work hard.

The poor do.

According to your stupid statement, Obama is rich,therefore he does not work hard.

Tell me that the two guys from Brooklyn who went from one hardware store to creating Home Depot did not work hard. Obviously, you do not have the drive to work hard, make sacrifices, and get the education and knowledge needed to do well. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Or the two guys from Long Island that decided it would be fun to try some off the wall flavors for iced tea and ten years later sold Snapple to Quaker Foods for about $1Billion...
All of these class envy ***** are helpless examples of what PT Barnum said...."There's a sucker born every minute"...

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're not entitled to any of it. You get Social Security because you paid for it. You get Medicare because you paid for it. We get a defense because we all pay for it. We get fire, police, roads, schools, river dikes, bridges etc. etc. etc. because we pay for it. Oh, did I say "we"? Not the richest among us, they are not paying their fair share, not even close. The Republican Party wants to tax you all right, then give their rich buddies tax breaks. Wake up!

Blah blah blah...Same old lib yapping yammering nonsense.
Tell me, what is the bottom line percentage of what level of income that would satisfy you as to your idea of 'fair share'?
No bloviating. No pontificating....Give me numbers.
I want to know at what income level do you figure some one to be 'wealthy'?
What is the percentage of their annual income that would satisfy your insatiable desire to take which you have not earned?

 

[Londoner]

80 years ago . . . when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes, they were taxed so that we could build the Hoover Dam . . . and the result was that we could settle the entire Southwest.

70 years ago . . . when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes, they were taxed so that the government could invest in the hard working poor . . . one of those being Ronald Reagan's father, who was saved by a government work program. The result was the 40th president Ronald Reagan. (Yes, investing in Americans is a good thing)

Today, when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes (like Mitt Romney), they build car elevators in their La Jolla mansion, and leave their children more money than they could spend in 20 lifetimes.

This is why America is failing.

We used to invest in the middle class. We used to invest in infrastructure and technology. We used to make sure that medical care and education was affordable for the middle class. Now we let big business buy politicians so they can monopolize every domestic market.

Now - instead of investing in the middle class - we create billionaires . . . so they can build car elevators.

(And we wonder where all the money went)

Study the postwar years when government invested in the middle class rather than let a few individuals accumulate all the wealth so they could buy government.

Concentrated wealth is concentrated power. Big business now has more power than any government ever dreamed.

The Koch brothers have more power than FDR ever dreamed. They fund elections, staff government, and influence media in order to shape opinions and write history according to their interests.

 

[Unkotare]

80 years ago . . . when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes, they were taxed so that we could build the Hoover Dam . . . and the result was that we could settle the entire Southwest.

The Hoover Dam paid for itself.

 

[Unkotare]

The Koch brothers have more power than FDR ever dreamed.

Absolute nonsense. You are either ignorant of history, blinded by partisanship and class warfare, or both. Let's see the Koch brothers try and throw over 100,000 US citizens into concentration camps and see how far they get. Your hyperpartisanship and shameless envy have made you hysterical.

 

[thereisnospoon]

80 years ago . . . when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes, they were taxed so that we could build the Hoover Dam . . . and the result was that we could settle the entire Southwest.

70 years ago . . . when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes, they were taxed so that the government could invest in the hard working poor . . . one of those being Ronald Reagan's father, who was saved by a government work program. The result was the 40th president Ronald Reagan. (Yes, investing in Americans is a good thing)

Today, when people had more money than they could spend in 3 lifetimes (like Mitt Romney), they build car elevators in their La Jolla mansion, and leave their children more money than they could spend in 20 lifetimes.

This is why America is failing.

We used to invest in the middle class. We used to invest in infrastructure and technology. We used to make sure that medical care and education was affordable for the middle class. Now we let big business buy politicians so they can monopolize every domestic market.

Now - instead of investing in the middle class - we create billionaires . . . so they can build car elevators.

(And we wonder where all the money went)

Study the postwar years when government invested in the middle class rather than let a few individuals accumulate all the wealth so they could buy government.

Concentrated wealth is concentrated power. Big business now has more power than any government ever dreamed.

The Koch brothers have more power than FDR ever dreamed. They fund elections, staff government, and influence media in order to shape opinions and write history according to their interests.

Ya know what really pisses me off? Liberal revisionist history. Fact is most peopel in this country were dirt poor. That in 1920 2% us controlled 80% of the wealth..That 2% also was responsible for over HALF of the GDP.
Both my parents were born at the beginning of the Great Depression. Their families were normal hard working people who made a meager living. They did not own their homes. Typical. In fact home ownership was less than half (45%). In 2000 it was over 65%.
So please. Do not opine when you do not know.
Until the economic downturn of the late 2000's , the people of the US are near their most prosperous in the history of this nation...
You are buying into the class envy/warfare nonsense. I don't want to hear it. It's garbage.

 

[FactFinder]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Somewhere between Fox News and MSNBC lies the honest truth.


Maybe we all are beholden to PBS?

 

[usmcstinger]

Poor people remain poor because they make poor choices. The Federal Government adds to the problem by throwing money at the situation. What has Obama done for the poor? A large portion of the poor do not work hard because they are not working.

 

[Foxfyre]

My thread "Two Cultures - Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff" has touched on some of the phenomenon. We have people clamoring for a figurative 'king' who will take most of the risk of want out of our lives. And alas, it is too often my fellow women, who promote this concept because so many feel more vulnerable and want assurance that they and and their children will never want for any necessities.

And we now have about half the U.S. population receiving some form of free stuff from the government; stuff they don't have to work for. And the more the government seems to be spooning out the free stuff, the less incentive there is to work for what we have.

The problem is that as the pool of folks who are working hard so that others can have free stuff is steadily shrinking in proportion to those receiving free stuff whose numbers are growing.

And what happens when the well of worker providers runs dry?

Those doling out the free stuff and thereby increasing their own personal fortunes don't care. And those receiving the free stuff don't care. Both expect to be old and gone before the well is dry.

This is probably the last generation that will have a good chance to turn it around. But those who try will continue to be labeled racist, hateful, selfish, greedy, and worse, most expecially those who have achieved great financial success. But if we don't turn it around now, there won't be enough worker providers to even have a voice, much less any power. Those receiving the free stuff and those increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by providing free stuff will hold all the cards.

 

[The T]

My thread "Two Cultures - Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff" has touched on some of the phenomenon. We have people clamoring for a figurative 'king' who will take most of the risk of want out of our lives. And alas, it is too often my fellow women, who promote this concept because so many feel more vulnerable and want assurance that they and and their children will never want for any necessities.

And we now have about half the U.S. population receiving some form of free stuff from the government; stuff they don't have to work for. And the more the government seems to be spooning out the free stuff, the less incentive there is to work for what we have.

The problem is that as the pool of folks who are working hard so that others can have free stuff is steadily shrinking in proportion to those receiving free stuff whose numbers are growing.

And what happens when the well of worker providers runs dry?

Those doling out the free stuff and thereby increasing their own personal fortunes don't care. And those receiving the free stuff don't care. Both expect to be old and gone before the well is dry.

This is probably the last generation that will have a good chance to turn it around. But those who try will continue to be labeled racist, hateful, selfish, greedy, and worse, most expecially those who have achieved great financial success. But if we don't turn it around now, there won't be enough worker providers to even have a voice, much less any power. Those receiving the free stuff and those increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by providing free stuff will hold all the cards.

Those that have played by the rules and have been paying the bills will end up wanting as those taking and recieving will be demanding still more.

Liberty as painted here is in severe jepoardy.

 

[katkat05]

Republicans ignore it as we feel that you need to earn it. Most of the poor are lazy and don't wish to pound the floor to advance them selfs.

Poor-think it should be handed to you=no wealth. You think life is a joke.
Rich-work hard and plan=more wealth!

Why should the people that work hard and are smart enough to save up give you their money?

Matthew I know many hard working "poor" people. Sure there are some lazy poor, but there are lazy rich and lazy middle class also, what does being lazy have to do with it? The poor folks I know work darn hard to support their families. None of them think "it" should be handed to them. On the other hand the few rich people I know have inherited their money and are ushered into the easy jobs they have. Even the hard working rich do not work "hard" like the poor work "hard". I don't understand where you get your information from. I worked for 15 years in a rubber factory running presses. I made very low wages. I didn't ask for anything from anyone to be handed to me.

 

[Liability]

I am STILL a fan of wealth inequality.

It is absurd to think that everybody should be able to have the same wealth.

Whatever the fair base-line might be, as long as it's satisfied, those who have talent and industriousness or skills, etc., SHOULD be able to do better than some guy who can barely manage to flip burgers or clean a floor or bathroom.

 

[The T]

I am STILL a fan of wealth inequality.

It is absurd to think that everybody should be able to have the same wealth.

Whatever the fair base-line might be, as long as it's satisfied, those who have talent and industriousness or skills, etc., SHOULD be able to do better than some guy who can barely manage to flip burgers or clean a floor or bathroom.

As TIME magazine once put on thier cover?

Men and Women are different...(Why wouldn't it carry over to the individual)?

 

[Inthemiddle]

"Ignore" is a strong word. It's just that wealth inequality is not only a fact of life, it's a necessity of life.

 

[The T]

Being as though ALL Americans are free to choose thier path in life...some choose more wisely than others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am STILL a fan of wealth inequality.

It is absurd to think that everybody should be able to have the same wealth.

Whatever the fair base-line might be, as long as it's satisfied, those who have talent and industriousness or skills, etc., SHOULD be able to do better than some guy who can barely manage to flip burgers or clean a floor or bathroom.

As TIME magazine once put on thier cover?

Men and Women are different...(Why wouldn't it carry over to the individual)?

Exactly. It is a fact that some are just wired for success more than others whether it is in brain power or motivation/ambition or raw native ability or stamina or many other factors. It is also a fact that some are blessed with advantages provided by their families that are not available to the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with that because we still had to use our God given gifts, and somebody back down the line worked damn hard to be able to pass advantages along to their progeny. It all comes down to choices. Nobody should be despised or put down because they are naturally gifted or because their parents worked hard to give them a leg up or a better chance for a better life. Otherwise what's the point of making good choices or working hard at all?