the attack on saudi oil

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

0 doubt its being done on purpose. All the events like this is on purpose-The already filthy rich are getting much richer off these events--They are the lowest form of life on earth. The rich are the problem.

I believe that the Saudis has staged this attack on their oil wells, to prevent everyone from finding out that their wells are going dry. They probably had blown up the wells that has went dry. They wants to keep up that image that they are overly abundant with oil. To make everyone bow down to them.

Why are you being such a dumbass? No oil wells were attacked. Period.

 

[Aletheia4u]

0 doubt its being done on purpose. All the events like this is on purpose-The already filthy rich are getting much richer off these events--They are the lowest form of life on earth. The rich are the problem.

I believe that the Saudis has staged this attack on their oil wells, to prevent everyone from finding out that their wells are going dry. They probably had blown up the wells that has went dry. They wants to keep up that image that they are overly abundant with oil. To make everyone bow down to them.

Why are you being such a dumbass? No oil wells were attacked. Period.

Maybe it was cod liver oil refineries.

Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for a drone attack on the world’s largest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia which is vital to global energy supplies.

The attacks on the processor and a major oilfield, operated by Saudi Aramco, on early Saturday sparked a huge fire, the kingdom’s interior ministry said.
Major Saudi Arabia oil facilities hit by Houthi drone strikes

Petronas to step up security after Saudi attacks, warns on oil price volatility

 

[MAGAman]

I feel so sorry for the Saudis

Let’s see them fight their own battles instead of hiring someone to do so

I feel sorry for Democrats.

There is yet another American ally they'll have to hate on command.

 

[MAGAman]

Saudi Arabia vs Iran in a no holds bared event! The assholes that attacked us on 9/11 vs the other assholes that kidnapped our ambassadors in 1978! They both hate our American guts! Who should prevail?

Saudi Arabia is the host of 5 US military bases.

We use those bases to project defensive and if necessary offensive power keeping terrorism off our shores.

SA didn't attack America. A few citizens did. Kinda like when someone from MYC sells drugs its not usually the Mayor's fault.

Guess...

 

[RealDave]

Men don't need to be worth billions of dollars while many go without. live on the streets. God created one human family. We are all brothers and sisters. It seems to be govts and false religions that are causing division. Standing in opposition to Gods will, as are the rich.

If there were no 'filthy rich'.... there wouldn't be any food.

If you doubt that, Soviet Union comes to mind. But if you hate history, just look at Venezuela. They drove out the rich, and now people are starving.

Being rich, is not anti-god or something. In fact, the only that goes completely against G-d is envy and greed.... which is basically what you are promoting.

What business is it of yours, how much money someone else has? None, unless you are driven by envy or greed. When you sit around saying "that person shouldn't have billions, when that guy doesn't have hundreds"... that is an envious and greed based line of thinking.

Moreover, do you know which person in the bible exemplified your line of thinking?

a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."
​

Do you remember who said that? It was Judas.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.​

Now notice... he didn't really care about the poor. That was just an excuse to cover his own greed and envy of the wealth.

This is why the Bible never suggests there is a problem with wealth. Never does it say anything bad about money. It says:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.​

Notice... it's not having money that is the root of evil. It is "the love of" money. It is your own attitude towards money, that is the root of evil.

So how can we know what attitude you have towards it? Well if you sit around talking about how much money other people have... that indicates that you have a problem with the love of money.

Ah, that fine line betwixt capitalism and socialism rears it's ugly head yet again here Andy

It's not so much the system, it's the players ,and how they prostitute it , change the rules to benefit themselves, etc

Anyone who's lived Reagan's trick down should be able to opine....

Which is why we've this>



~S~

Reagan never came up with trickle down. And in reality the rich paid more taxes under Reagan, than they did under Carter.

Regardless, everyone was better off under Reagan, and Clinton, which largely followed the economic policies of Reagan.

Inequality is normal, and in fact, I believe good.

The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have.

Moreover, the idea that people who take no risk, should have the same amount wealth as those to take all the risk, is equally immoral.

Even if you work 40 hours a week, you own zero risk. The average owner of a McDonald's franchise has invested over a one million dollars of his own money to have that franchise.

That's the problem with all you anti-capitalist pro-socialist decrying inequality people. You scream about how the owners get so much money, and the workers don't. But what happens when that McDonald's store closes?

See you are all real quick to scream about equality, when the owners are making the big bucks. But magically silent when they are losing the big bucks.

If you really want true equality, then here is my proposal. Let's force all employees to put in equal stakes in the company. If the company does well, then they'll get equal money from the profits. But if the company folds, then all the workers own all the debt equally as well.

The McDonald's I worked at in high school, closed one year after I left. The owner lost everything. I didn't have to pay a dime.

But let's put your "equality" system. The average McDonald's costs $2.4 Million dollars, and has a crew of 40 people. The business goes bust. Ok, everyone owes about $60,000.

That's equal right? You want equality right? Of course your equality would bankrupt most employees, which is why you don't want equality.

Equality is just a word you use to cover for your greed and envy. You only want equality, when there is a reward. You don't want it when there is risk.

Henry Heinz went completely bankrupt when he tried to sell horseradish. No one was complaining about him being a robber baron then. It was only when he was successful selling ketchup, that people started complaining.

Equality is only a term used, when someone sees someone else with more than them.
i don't see many Americans going on vacation in Columbia, and complaining about equality because they themselves have more than 99% of the Colombians"]It's just greed and envy, and it is evil. You should stop it.

"The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have"

Nobody has that position.
That right there is the fundamental misunderstanding and dishonest representation of the Progressive agenda.

But that is the position.

When you post those graphs showing some people have more, and some people have less, and then claim that inequality is bad.....

Do you know how much work, the people who have more, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

Do you know how much work, those people who have less, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

So on what basis are you saying that the inequality is wrong?

You have to be assuming that those who have more should not have it, regardless of what they did to earn it, and those who have less, should have more regardless of what they did to earn it.

That is the progressive agenda.

People who work wisely, and work hard, and save or invest their money wisely, will end up wealthy. That hard work and effort, should naturally result in those with much more, relative to those who do not do those things.

The CEO of VMWare, was making $8 Million dollars a year. Did you know that Pat Gelsinger was regularly putting in 80-hours a week?
Mark Zuckerberg was up by 5:30 AM every morning, and regularly stayed until 6 PM.
Carol Smith, of Harper’s Bazaar, comes in on Sunday for 4 hours, to catch up on work without any distractions.
Tim Cook of Apple, is answering emails by 4:30 AM.

Daily Routines of Fortune 500 Leaders (and What You Can Learn from Them)

So when you look at the people with the wealth, they are typically working exceptionally hard. That is why they are have all the money.

And when you look at the poorest people in this country, who want to clock in for 8 hours only, and clock out, and invest none of their own capital, own none of the risk of a business failure.... it's no wonder they have very little wealth.

Even with those people though, the biggest problem is that they simply handle money badly.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

How can a janitor working a standard shift, end up a multimillionaire? He used money wisely, and invested it.

And how many of the struggling work 9-10 hours a day at their job only to go to a second job later.
Far far far far far more than the CEOs doing it.

 

[RealDave]

Here is what is being missed in the SA attack.

Saudi has purchased air defense systems from the US that was to protect them from these attacks.

So who would know how to avoid these systems? Did they know where the holes were? Did they know how to fool those systems? Maybe the systems were "turned off" to allow the attack.

How do ten low flying missiles get the SA unnoticed?

Who benefits from an Iran/Saudi war?
1) Israel. They would know how to circumvent the US supplied missile defense systems.
2) Any other oil producing nation. Such as the U.S. Did Trump get with his cohort Nitwitandyahoo and devise this plan. Israel's enemies are weakened and the US oil companies rake in the cash with rising oil prices..

This could be another wag the dog.

 

[caddo kid]

We should nuke Iran.

That post has to be the winner for most asinine post in the thread; congrats

 

[Aletheia4u]

She is right. Saudis are not to be trusted.

 

[sparky]

Here is what is being missed in the SA attack.

Saudi has purchased air defense systems from the US that was to protect them from these attacks.

So who would know how to avoid these systems? Did they know where the holes were? Did they know how to fool those systems? Maybe the systems were "turned off" to allow the attack.

How do ten low flying missiles get the SA unnoticed?

Who benefits from an Iran/Saudi war?
1) Israel. They would know how to circumvent the US supplied missile defense systems.
2) Any other oil producing nation. Such as the U.S. Did Trump get with his cohort Nitwitandyahoo and devise this plan. Israel's enemies are weakened and the US oil companies rake in the cash with rising oil prices..

This could be another wag the dog.

so...our military industrial complex is catering to both sides of the ME conflict.....

~S~

 

[RealDave]

Here is what is being missed in the SA attack.

Saudi has purchased air defense systems from the US that was to protect them from these attacks.

So who would know how to avoid these systems? Did they know where the holes were? Did they know how to fool those systems? Maybe the systems were "turned off" to allow the attack.

How do ten low flying missiles get the SA unnoticed?

Who benefits from an Iran/Saudi war?
1) Israel. They would know how to circumvent the US supplied missile defense systems.
2) Any other oil producing nation. Such as the U.S. Did Trump get with his cohort Nitwitandyahoo and devise this plan. Israel's enemies are weakened and the US oil companies rake in the cash with rising oil prices..

This could be another wag the dog.

so...our military industrial complex is catering to both sides of the ME conflict.....

~S~

Israel First
Saudi Arabia Second

 

[RealDave]

Here is what is being missed in the SA attack.

Saudi has purchased air defense systems from the US that was to protect them from these attacks.

So who would know how to avoid these systems? Did they know where the holes were? Did they know how to fool those systems? Maybe the systems were "turned off" to allow the attack.

How do ten low flying missiles get the SA unnoticed?

Who benefits from an Iran/Saudi war?
1) Israel. They would know how to circumvent the US supplied missile defense systems.
2) Any other oil producing nation. Such as the U.S. Did Trump get with his cohort Nitwitandyahoo and devise this plan. Israel's enemies are weakened and the US oil companies rake in the cash with rising oil prices..

This could be another wag the dog.

so...our military industrial complex is catering to both sides of the ME conflict.....

~S~

Israel First
Saudi Arabia Second

 

[MAGAman]

She is right. Saudis are not to be trusted.

Shes stupid and desperate.

She wants to reward Iran by giving them back the Honey Pot Obana gave them and dropping all sanctions that threaten their ability to promote terrorism.

Running as the "Pro-Iran" candidate is good in the Democrat Primaries, but sucks in the general election.

 

[MAGAman]

Here is what is being missed in the SA attack.

Saudi has purchased air defense systems from the US that was to protect them from these attacks.

So who would know how to avoid these systems? Did they know where the holes were? Did they know how to fool those systems? Maybe the systems were "turned off" to allow the attack.

How do ten low flying missiles get the SA unnoticed?

Who benefits from an Iran/Saudi war?
1) Israel. They would know how to circumvent the US supplied missile defense systems.
2) Any other oil producing nation. Such as the U.S. Did Trump get with his cohort Nitwitandyahoo and devise this plan. Israel's enemies are weakened and the US oil companies rake in the cash with rising oil prices..

This could be another wag the dog.

Seriously?

SA is large enough that it's not unlikely their borders could be breached unnoticed by high speed missiles. Drug runners breach Americas southern border regularly in a Cessna.

We already share missile defense technology with Isreal. Both ways. What Antisemitic conspiracy theory are you implying?

Alex Jones much?

 

[Aletheia4u]

She is right. Saudis are not to be trusted.

Shes stupid and desperate.

She wants to reward Iran by giving them back the Honey Pot Obana gave them and dropping all sanctions that threaten their ability to promote terrorism.

Running as the "Pro-Iran" candidate is good in the Democrat Primaries, but sucks in the general election.

She wants to release sanction to prevent them from starving. But she don't want to arm them. The reason why sanctions are slapped on them. It is to prevent them from buying arms. The reason why Obama has supplied Iran, N.Korea and the rest. It is to have a reason to slap sanctions on poor countries.. So that they can starve themselves to death. That they will be willing to sell their own organs for food.But it will be inhumane to slap sanctions on a poor country that doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Tulsi knows what is going on. She knows that sheep herders cannot afford nukes by selling wool.

 

[sparky]

. What Antisemitic conspiracy theory are you implying?

More Oilocracy implications, and 4Q for trying to paint any of it antisemitic

~S~

 

[deanrd]

Saudi Arabia is going to attack Iran until the last American.

 

[sparky]

Saudi Arabia is going to attack Iran until the last American.

yes, well...., when they run out of Yemmenities.....~S~

 

[Andylusion]

What?

How exactly has anyone anywhere been "punishing" them economically for decades?

That doesn't even make sense. Venezuela was the economic leader of the Latin American. They were a net exporter of food, and had nearly unlimited natural resources.

How were they "punished"?

Sanctions that began the minute Chavez got elected.

An attempted coup sponsored by the US in 2002, that failed when the people angrily rose up against the military and put Chavez back into power.

Please tell me, that you are not just making up an excuse, to cover up the fact that Venezuela's socialist policies wiped out their economy, and now magically they were retroactively being punished for decades.

Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

I'm sorry that you are too stupid to realize how we've been punishing the place for picking an economic system we don't like.

US Media Ignore—and Applaud—Economic War on Venezuela

A: I don't buy the idea that an attempted coup, caused farms in Venezuela to stop producing rice, converting an nation that was a net exporter of food, into a nation of mass starvation. Especially since the coup clearly failed, and honestly if the US was really supporting the coup, there is no way it would have failed.

B: Be specific. What specific sanctions caused farmers to stop growing rice, and change Venezuela form a net export of food, to starving?

See the problem is, Sanctions didn't do half of the damage you claim. For example, you link to your completely biased left-wing fake news site, claims it prevent food from getting into Venezuela. How true that is, is questionable.

However what isn't questionable, is that Venezuela produced more food than they could possibly eat, before Chavez got control, yanked land from productive farmers and gave it to unproductive peasants.

What isn't questionable is that price controls made selling food in Venezuela unprofitable for the people in the country, and it can be assumed it was unprofitable for those outside the country to export their food to Venezuela.

What isn't questionable, is that when the government nationalized the oil industry in the 1970s, production fell. When they opened up the oil industry to foreign investment in the late 80s to 90s, production increased. When Chavez confiscated foreign owned oil production assets, production crashed.

You could make the case that sanctions made selling Venezuelan oil hard. You could.... in theory, try and make that case. But sanctions had nothing to do with the drop in the actual production of oil, regardless of price. That loss of production happened when the price of oil was at it's highest levels.

The only explanation for that is socialism.

 

[Andylusion]

If there were no 'filthy rich'.... there wouldn't be any food.

If you doubt that, Soviet Union comes to mind. But if you hate history, just look at Venezuela. They drove out the rich, and now people are starving.

Being rich, is not anti-god or something. In fact, the only that goes completely against G-d is envy and greed.... which is basically what you are promoting.

What business is it of yours, how much money someone else has? None, unless you are driven by envy or greed. When you sit around saying "that person shouldn't have billions, when that guy doesn't have hundreds"... that is an envious and greed based line of thinking.

Moreover, do you know which person in the bible exemplified your line of thinking?

a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."
​

Do you remember who said that? It was Judas.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.​

Now notice... he didn't really care about the poor. That was just an excuse to cover his own greed and envy of the wealth.

This is why the Bible never suggests there is a problem with wealth. Never does it say anything bad about money. It says:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.​

Notice... it's not having money that is the root of evil. It is "the love of" money. It is your own attitude towards money, that is the root of evil.

So how can we know what attitude you have towards it? Well if you sit around talking about how much money other people have... that indicates that you have a problem with the love of money.

Ah, that fine line betwixt capitalism and socialism rears it's ugly head yet again here Andy

It's not so much the system, it's the players ,and how they prostitute it , change the rules to benefit themselves, etc

Anyone who's lived Reagan's trick down should be able to opine....

Which is why we've this>



~S~

Reagan never came up with trickle down. And in reality the rich paid more taxes under Reagan, than they did under Carter.

Regardless, everyone was better off under Reagan, and Clinton, which largely followed the economic policies of Reagan.

Inequality is normal, and in fact, I believe good.

The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have.

Moreover, the idea that people who take no risk, should have the same amount wealth as those to take all the risk, is equally immoral.

Even if you work 40 hours a week, you own zero risk. The average owner of a McDonald's franchise has invested over a one million dollars of his own money to have that franchise.

That's the problem with all you anti-capitalist pro-socialist decrying inequality people. You scream about how the owners get so much money, and the workers don't. But what happens when that McDonald's store closes?

See you are all real quick to scream about equality, when the owners are making the big bucks. But magically silent when they are losing the big bucks.

If you really want true equality, then here is my proposal. Let's force all employees to put in equal stakes in the company. If the company does well, then they'll get equal money from the profits. But if the company folds, then all the workers own all the debt equally as well.

The McDonald's I worked at in high school, closed one year after I left. The owner lost everything. I didn't have to pay a dime.

But let's put your "equality" system. The average McDonald's costs $2.4 Million dollars, and has a crew of 40 people. The business goes bust. Ok, everyone owes about $60,000.

That's equal right? You want equality right? Of course your equality would bankrupt most employees, which is why you don't want equality.

Equality is just a word you use to cover for your greed and envy. You only want equality, when there is a reward. You don't want it when there is risk.

Henry Heinz went completely bankrupt when he tried to sell horseradish. No one was complaining about him being a robber baron then. It was only when he was successful selling ketchup, that people started complaining.

Equality is only a term used, when someone sees someone else with more than them.
i don't see many Americans going on vacation in Columbia, and complaining about equality because they themselves have more than 99% of the Colombians"]It's just greed and envy, and it is evil. You should stop it.

"The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have"

Nobody has that position.
That right there is the fundamental misunderstanding and dishonest representation of the Progressive agenda.

But that is the position.

When you post those graphs showing some people have more, and some people have less, and then claim that inequality is bad.....

Do you know how much work, the people who have more, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

Do you know how much work, those people who have less, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

So on what basis are you saying that the inequality is wrong?

You have to be assuming that those who have more should not have it, regardless of what they did to earn it, and those who have less, should have more regardless of what they did to earn it.

That is the progressive agenda.

People who work wisely, and work hard, and save or invest their money wisely, will end up wealthy. That hard work and effort, should naturally result in those with much more, relative to those who do not do those things.

The CEO of VMWare, was making $8 Million dollars a year. Did you know that Pat Gelsinger was regularly putting in 80-hours a week?
Mark Zuckerberg was up by 5:30 AM every morning, and regularly stayed until 6 PM.
Carol Smith, of Harper’s Bazaar, comes in on Sunday for 4 hours, to catch up on work without any distractions.
Tim Cook of Apple, is answering emails by 4:30 AM.

Daily Routines of Fortune 500 Leaders (and What You Can Learn from Them)

So when you look at the people with the wealth, they are typically working exceptionally hard. That is why they are have all the money.

And when you look at the poorest people in this country, who want to clock in for 8 hours only, and clock out, and invest none of their own capital, own none of the risk of a business failure.... it's no wonder they have very little wealth.

Even with those people though, the biggest problem is that they simply handle money badly.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

How can a janitor working a standard shift, end up a multimillionaire? He used money wisely, and invested it.

And how many of the struggling work 9-10 hours a day at their job only to go to a second job later.
Far far far far far more than the CEOs doing it.

Very few. That is the answer. Few people are working 10 hours a day, and then getting a second job. Very few.

Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment

Even the ridiculously left-wing Politifact has to admit, that AOC's 'everyone is working 80 hours, and having multiple jobs' is a liar liar pants on fire statement.

And again..... honestly, if you are struggling to make ends meet working 40 hours a week, then one of two things is true:

A: You need to get a better job, and yes you can. I've done it. Other people have done it. Most people started off with a crap job, and got a better one, and then a better one after that.

B: You need to stop living above, or right at your means. Right now it's 90º outside, and I have the window open, and I have a fan on. Do I have central air? Yes. But that costs money, and I make the choice to live below my means. And honestly, I grew up in a house that didn't have A/C until about 5 years after I left home.

You can choose to live within your means.
You can choose to get a better job.

Anyone can. It's a choice.
The solution to a persons struggles, is in the mirror.

More importantly, if you waste your life, waiting for government to fix your struggles, you life will never improve. Nothing government does is going to fix your struggling. It never has in the history of the world, and it will not here either. The USA is not magically above all other countries, where we can ignore economics, and just vote for the magic money tree to drop on us everything we want.

 

[RealDave]

Ah, that fine line betwixt capitalism and socialism rears it's ugly head yet again here Andy

It's not so much the system, it's the players ,and how they prostitute it , change the rules to benefit themselves, etc

Anyone who's lived Reagan's trick down should be able to opine....

Which is why we've this>



~S~

Reagan never came up with trickle down. And in reality the rich paid more taxes under Reagan, than they did under Carter.

Regardless, everyone was better off under Reagan, and Clinton, which largely followed the economic policies of Reagan.

Inequality is normal, and in fact, I believe good.

The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have.

Moreover, the idea that people who take no risk, should have the same amount wealth as those to take all the risk, is equally immoral.

Even if you work 40 hours a week, you own zero risk. The average owner of a McDonald's franchise has invested over a one million dollars of his own money to have that franchise.

That's the problem with all you anti-capitalist pro-socialist decrying inequality people. You scream about how the owners get so much money, and the workers don't. But what happens when that McDonald's store closes?

See you are all real quick to scream about equality, when the owners are making the big bucks. But magically silent when they are losing the big bucks.

If you really want true equality, then here is my proposal. Let's force all employees to put in equal stakes in the company. If the company does well, then they'll get equal money from the profits. But if the company folds, then all the workers own all the debt equally as well.

The McDonald's I worked at in high school, closed one year after I left. The owner lost everything. I didn't have to pay a dime.

But let's put your "equality" system. The average McDonald's costs $2.4 Million dollars, and has a crew of 40 people. The business goes bust. Ok, everyone owes about $60,000.

That's equal right? You want equality right? Of course your equality would bankrupt most employees, which is why you don't want equality.

Equality is just a word you use to cover for your greed and envy. You only want equality, when there is a reward. You don't want it when there is risk.

Henry Heinz went completely bankrupt when he tried to sell horseradish. No one was complaining about him being a robber baron then. It was only when he was successful selling ketchup, that people started complaining.

Equality is only a term used, when someone sees someone else with more than them.
i don't see many Americans going on vacation in Columbia, and complaining about equality because they themselves have more than 99% of the Colombians"]It's just greed and envy, and it is evil. You should stop it.

"The idea that people who do nothing, should have the same amount of wealth as those who work their asses off, is the most immoral of all positions to have"

Nobody has that position.
That right there is the fundamental misunderstanding and dishonest representation of the Progressive agenda.

But that is the position.

When you post those graphs showing some people have more, and some people have less, and then claim that inequality is bad.....

Do you know how much work, the people who have more, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

Do you know how much work, those people who have less, have done to earn it?

No. You do not know.

So on what basis are you saying that the inequality is wrong?

You have to be assuming that those who have more should not have it, regardless of what they did to earn it, and those who have less, should have more regardless of what they did to earn it.

That is the progressive agenda.

People who work wisely, and work hard, and save or invest their money wisely, will end up wealthy. That hard work and effort, should naturally result in those with much more, relative to those who do not do those things.

The CEO of VMWare, was making $8 Million dollars a year. Did you know that Pat Gelsinger was regularly putting in 80-hours a week?
Mark Zuckerberg was up by 5:30 AM every morning, and regularly stayed until 6 PM.
Carol Smith, of Harper’s Bazaar, comes in on Sunday for 4 hours, to catch up on work without any distractions.
Tim Cook of Apple, is answering emails by 4:30 AM.

Daily Routines of Fortune 500 Leaders (and What You Can Learn from Them)

So when you look at the people with the wealth, they are typically working exceptionally hard. That is why they are have all the money.

And when you look at the poorest people in this country, who want to clock in for 8 hours only, and clock out, and invest none of their own capital, own none of the risk of a business failure.... it's no wonder they have very little wealth.

Even with those people though, the biggest problem is that they simply handle money badly.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

How can a janitor working a standard shift, end up a multimillionaire? He used money wisely, and invested it.

And how many of the struggling work 9-10 hours a day at their job only to go to a second job later.
Far far far far far more than the CEOs doing it.

Very few. That is the answer. Few people are working 10 hours a day, and then getting a second job. Very few.

Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment

Even the ridiculously left-wing Politifact has to admit, that AOC's 'everyone is working 80 hours, and having multiple jobs' is a liar liar pants on fire statement.

And again..... honestly, if you are struggling to make ends meet working 40 hours a week, then one of two things is true:

A: You need to get a better job, and yes you can. I've done it. Other people have done it. Most people started off with a crap job, and got a better one, and then a better one after that.

B: You need to stop living above, or right at your means. Right now it's 90º outside, and I have the window open, and I have a fan on. Do I have central air? Yes. But that costs money, and I make the choice to live below my means. And honestly, I grew up in a house that didn't have A/C until about 5 years after I left home.

You can choose to live within your means.
You can choose to get a better job.

Anyone can. It's a choice.
The solution to a persons struggles, is in the mirror.

More importantly, if you waste your life, waiting for government to fix your struggles, you life will never improve. Nothing government does is going to fix your struggling. It never has in the history of the world, and it will not here either. The USA is not magically above all other countries, where we can ignore economics, and just vote for the magic money tree to drop on us everything we want.

1) I never said everyone was working two jobs. I said there are more people working two jobs than there are 80 hour week CEOs. Don't run around saying all CEOs work 80 hours & then yell at anyone when they say some [eople work the same hours. Quit being such an ass.

2) People can just go out & find better jobs. If not, they can choose not to feed their kids? Again, what an ass.

3) Since when in a great economy does the deficit skyrocket & the Fed needs to bail it out to avoid a recession.

Magic money tree???? When you slash revenues & increase spending & you are shocked when it doesn't work.