The risk of income inequality

[bripat9643]

If you want to pay them an extra 65¢ an hour, ok, but that still accomplishes nothing. 65¢ isn't going to roll back all the welfare roles, and shrink government.

Nevertheless, I take back that you were making up stuff. At least there are some estimates claiming the Waltons are making $3 Billion in dividends.

I will also concede that it is even possible, that they are in fact collecting $3 Billion.

I couldn't actually find anything proving that the Walton's owned 50% of the shares. Several claims, but no proof. I did find that a majority stake, 51% of the shares are owned by insiders. But "insiders" is not limited to the Waltons.

We do know what they have a holding company, with 1.6 billion shares of Wal-mart stock, and that likely brings them $2 Billion in dividends. But that is only 33% of the company. The other 17% of insider shares is divided up among all the insiders, not just the Waltons.

But all of that is beside the point.

They own this company. Should they not get a share of the profit of the company they built? Sam Walton started this entire thing from a tiny mom&pop dollar store. He built this company. He owned it, and gave it to his family. They own this company.

If you owned a car, and the car made money.... shouldn't you get a share of that money? Of course. And if you don't, you would not have bought it.

If you create a system by which the people who make these companies, can't make a share of the profit from their ownership........ well then they are not going to do it! And then 2.2 million people will not be employed.

Again, how much welfare are they going to collect while earning zero?

Well I don't think the kids have ever done very much to earn it, but I agree they should make money. Again I have not said take from them, I'm just pointing out that if so few can make so much then don't tell me they can't pay more to workers.

Now if Walmarts corporate tax rate went to 0, would that give them money to pay the workers more?

Does that matter? Why does that matter?

If your parents bought us savings bonds, and put them in trust for your children.... as many often do, your kids haven't lifted a finger for those. Should they not be allowed to have them?

If your grand father gave you his 1967 Shelby mustang, and you hire someone to take it to auto shows where you win money and prizes for it.... is that wrong? You didn't 'work' for it, so it's somehow wrong?

Why?

Nearly every family farm, was passed down through generations since homesteading. Is that wrong? Should you not be allowed to give your children stuff?

Sam Walton worked his butt off making his company, and gave his children shares in the company he made. I don't see a problem with that, whether they 'worked for it' or not.

The bottom line: If your children aren't entitled to inherit your money, then nobody is, especially the government.

 

[Againsheila]

What they don't understand is that under our system, violence will not be necessary. If we create too many poor because of stupid economic policy, then eventually there will be so many in the lower rungs that they will vote people into power who will make changes. When that happens, we will see a major shift in taxation so that the super wealthy do not benefit as much as they have, and more opportunity will open up for everyone.

I wish that were true, but the poor are less likely to vote at all. This leads to economic slavery.

Watch that video of the earthquake at Farrell's you'll notice the workers don't look like teenagers. The jobs the right wingers call starting jobs are now just jobs.

That's because the minimum wage is too high. It's like Europe where the minimum wage is so high, entry level jobs are careers and there is no foothold for the young people just entering the work force.

Minimum wage has the lowest spending power in history. You can't even get an apartment on minimum wage today. When my brother was on minimum wage in the 60's he had his own apartment, bought a car and went to college part time. That's just a dream for today's minimum wage workers. You really should know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. The problem is there are no jobs. We've sent them all over seas.

 

[Againsheila]

No, the problem is, one side thinks there is a problem, and the other does not.

It's not a problem, unless you are greedy. I don't care how much anyone else makes. If everyone else on this planet, got a pay raise tomorrow, from the most wealthy, to the poorest..... Why should I care how much anyone else is making?

I want everyone to succeed. It never has been an issue in my life, where I was bitter and envious, or angry, that someone else somewhere else, was making more money than me.

Why? Why not? Why does it matter?

Like I said before, if Warren Buffet doubles his income next year, how does that affect me? It doesn't. If Warren Buffet gets fired, and starts working at Walmart as a greeter, how does that affect me? It doesn't.

The only time that 'income inequality" is a problem for someone, is if that person is a greedy, envious, selfish, hateful, bitter person, that thinks it's wrong that others are doing better than themselves.

It's not a real problem. Greed and envy is the problem, not income inequality.

That's just how it is.

So many are getting rich off all this corporate welfare, that's why it matters. The government continues to grow while the rich get richer. If Walmart employees didn't collect welfare the government could get smaller. And as long as all the execs are making millions of dollars you can't tell me they can't afford to pay more. Heck paying more might even increase sales. I tend to shop where they have the best people. I sure don't shop based on who has the highest paid CEO.

what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate welfare" ?

Tax breaks and subsidies with no corresponding benefit to society.

 

[Againsheila]

So now, you care more about the election, than cutting the size of government?

We did cut welfare back in the 90s. Nothing happened, except people go to work.

In the state of Ohio, you can collect food stamps if you earn less than $1,667 a month. That's $10.40 an hour. I just looked it up.

No I care about something that will actually work. Cutting welfare just for it to be raised back up 2 years later doesn't fix anything. In the 90's we had a strong economy and low unemployment. Now we have a stagnant economy and high unemployment. It won't work now.

Not sure of the cost of living in Ohio, but that is only $20,000 a year. That's poor.

But it won't work. What you are proposing won't work. Every time you force up wages, people lose their jobs. How much welfare will they collect when they are earning zero?

Yes, we have a stagnant economy with high unemployment.

What was the last economic policy we put in place, before this happened?

2009, minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Hello..... minimum wage kills jobs.

There are no jobs to lose and the last two times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

 

[Againsheila]

Just a few links people should check out while we are debating this issue.

Income Inequality is Bad for Society. Really Bad. » Sociological Images

Corporate Profits at All-Time High; Wages at All-Time Low: Can We Call it Class War Yet? | Alternet

Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

It?s Time To Create A Living Wage ? I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists

It is absolutely time to raise the minimum wage. Government has been subsidizing workers who make low wages and thus subsidizing large corporations and preventing them from having to pay additional wages.

The Minimum Wage: Myths & Facts | Research | Media Matters for America

Hiring Response To Minimum Wage Hikes "More Likely To Be Positive Than Negative." In a March 2011 report, the Center for Economic and Policy Research concluded that wage increases are more likely to result in more, rather than fewer, jobs:

 

[ScienceRocks]

Total executive compensation was about $62 million last year and I'm sure there's plenty of other people making lots of money. And that doesn't even include what the Waltons are making. Based on where they sit in the richest people I'd say a lot.

So how do we ever balance the budget when our largest corporations are paying so little that employees have to collect welfare?

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

I am a moderate that wants smart government that respects our rights. On the other hand I believe that government needs to regulate and invest in areas that advance our country. Just being for small government for the heck of it isn't all that wise.

We can agree in some areas like welfare and spying as they are clearly over the line.

 

[Brain357]

If you want to pay them an extra 65¢ an hour, ok, but that still accomplishes nothing. 65¢ isn't going to roll back all the welfare roles, and shrink government.

Nevertheless, I take back that you were making up stuff. At least there are some estimates claiming the Waltons are making $3 Billion in dividends.

I will also concede that it is even possible, that they are in fact collecting $3 Billion.

I couldn't actually find anything proving that the Walton's owned 50% of the shares. Several claims, but no proof. I did find that a majority stake, 51% of the shares are owned by insiders. But "insiders" is not limited to the Waltons.

We do know what they have a holding company, with 1.6 billion shares of Wal-mart stock, and that likely brings them $2 Billion in dividends. But that is only 33% of the company. The other 17% of insider shares is divided up among all the insiders, not just the Waltons.

But all of that is beside the point.

They own this company. Should they not get a share of the profit of the company they built? Sam Walton started this entire thing from a tiny mom&pop dollar store. He built this company. He owned it, and gave it to his family. They own this company.

If you owned a car, and the car made money.... shouldn't you get a share of that money? Of course. And if you don't, you would not have bought it.

If you create a system by which the people who make these companies, can't make a share of the profit from their ownership........ well then they are not going to do it! And then 2.2 million people will not be employed.

Again, how much welfare are they going to collect while earning zero?

Well I don't think the kids have ever done very much to earn it, but I agree they should make money. Again I have not said take from them, I'm just pointing out that if so few can make so much then don't tell me they can't pay more to workers.

Now if Walmarts corporate tax rate went to 0, would that give them money to pay the workers more?

Does that matter? Why does that matter?

If your parents bought us savings bonds, and put them in trust for your children.... as many often do, your kids haven't lifted a finger for those. Should they not be allowed to have them?

If your grand father gave you his 1967 Shelby mustang, and you hire someone to take it to auto shows where you win money and prizes for it.... is that wrong? You didn't 'work' for it, so it's somehow wrong?

Why?

Nearly every family farm, was passed down through generations since homesteading. Is that wrong? Should you not be allowed to give your children stuff?

Sam Walton worked his butt off making his company, and gave his children shares in the company he made. I don't see a problem with that, whether they 'worked for it' or not.

I already agreed with you. No need to go on about how great the rich are. I think it does say a lot about their character. Here they have had it so easy and yet they pay others so little.

 

[Andylusion]

Why won't it work? I'm always hearing how we need to lower corporate taxes. I would offer 0.

I'm not proposing minimum wage. That is forcing companies to pay more. I would give them the opportunity to pay 0 corporate taxes in return for better wages. Quite the difference.

Again, a company is not going to jack up wages, when they don't know what their taxes would be, nor how much of that 'offer' they would get.

If you simply cut taxes, that would increase pay. But no company is going to increase wages, on the hopes that the offset in taxes will be worth it, when they don't know what their taxes will be.

Yes cutting taxes with no strings attached has a long history of working great.

But it does. If you cut the social security tax alone, that would increase everyone's pay by 7%. Instant 7% raise.

And see, like I said, if you have strings attatched, then you can't count on it. If you can't count on it, then you are not going to do it.

Remember, a tax deduction only come into effect when you file your taxes. In the mean time, you still have to pay taxes throughout the year.

So giving a tax deduction, doesn't change how much money the company has for 11 months out of the year. The fiscal constraints that determine wages remain exactly the same.

The only solution that would make a difference is if you actually have a guarantee that you won't pay tax. Then you can pay employees more, knowing you won't get nailed at the end of the year.

Besides that.... no matter what the company does with that money, it will be a benefit to the everyone. If they cut prices on products, that benefits society. If they invest more into capital investment, that will create jobs and boost the economy. If they give out wage hikes, that will benefit employees.

So I'm all for zero tax, no matter what they do with it.

 

[Andylusion]

Well I don't think the kids have ever done very much to earn it, but I agree they should make money. Again I have not said take from them, I'm just pointing out that if so few can make so much then don't tell me they can't pay more to workers.

Now if Walmarts corporate tax rate went to 0, would that give them money to pay the workers more?

Does that matter? Why does that matter?

If your parents bought us savings bonds, and put them in trust for your children.... as many often do, your kids haven't lifted a finger for those. Should they not be allowed to have them?

If your grand father gave you his 1967 Shelby mustang, and you hire someone to take it to auto shows where you win money and prizes for it.... is that wrong? You didn't 'work' for it, so it's somehow wrong?

Why?

Nearly every family farm, was passed down through generations since homesteading. Is that wrong? Should you not be allowed to give your children stuff?

Sam Walton worked his butt off making his company, and gave his children shares in the company he made. I don't see a problem with that, whether they 'worked for it' or not.

I already agreed with you. No need to go on about how great the rich are. I think it does say a lot about their character. Here they have had it so easy and yet they pay others so little.

We just covered this. If you take all that money, and give it to the employees, it's pennies. It won't change their life or anything.

The people who determine wages, are the customers. We determine wages by how much we are willing to pay for products and services.

You just up the price of goods in order to pay employees $15/hr+ and the result is, we'll all go to a different store, with lower prices, and all those $15/hour employees will be unemployed after Walmart closes.

 

[Brain357]

Again, a company is not going to jack up wages, when they don't know what their taxes would be, nor how much of that 'offer' they would get.

If you simply cut taxes, that would increase pay. But no company is going to increase wages, on the hopes that the offset in taxes will be worth it, when they don't know what their taxes will be.

Yes cutting taxes with no strings attached has a long history of working great.

But it does. If you cut the social security tax alone, that would increase everyone's pay by 7%. Instant 7% raise.

And see, like I said, if you have strings attatched, then you can't count on it. If you can't count on it, then you are not going to do it.

Remember, a tax deduction only come into effect when you file your taxes. In the mean time, you still have to pay taxes throughout the year.

So giving a tax deduction, doesn't change how much money the company has for 11 months out of the year. The fiscal constraints that determine wages remain exactly the same.

The only solution that would make a difference is if you actually have a guarantee that you won't pay tax. Then you can pay employees more, knowing you won't get nailed at the end of the year.

Besides that.... no matter what the company does with that money, it will be a benefit to the everyone. If they cut prices on products, that benefits society. If they invest more into capital investment, that will create jobs and boost the economy. If they give out wage hikes, that will benefit employees.

So I'm all for zero tax, no matter what they do with it.

So you cut social security tax when these big corporations no longer give good retirement benefits? Most people are going to have to use social security as their retirement and I think it's already looking to be low on funds.

I was talking about corporate tax. And if you give incentives for companies to have lower taxes they will take advantage of it. With execs making millions I'm sure they can figure it out.

 

[Andylusion]

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

I am a moderate that wants smart government that respects our rights. On the other hand I believe that government needs to regulate and invest in areas that advance our country. Just being for small government for the heck of it isn't all that wise.

We can agree in some areas like welfare and spying as they are clearly over the line.

Ok, but you understand that regulation by it's very nature, benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.... right?

Regulation is the biggest pro-rich policy you can have. Nothing harms the poor at the benefit of the rich, more than regulation.

As for government investment.... typically that also benefits the rich, at the expense of the tax payers. What exactly would you like to see government investing in?

 

[Brain357]

Does that matter? Why does that matter?

If your parents bought us savings bonds, and put them in trust for your children.... as many often do, your kids haven't lifted a finger for those. Should they not be allowed to have them?

If your grand father gave you his 1967 Shelby mustang, and you hire someone to take it to auto shows where you win money and prizes for it.... is that wrong? You didn't 'work' for it, so it's somehow wrong?

Why?

Nearly every family farm, was passed down through generations since homesteading. Is that wrong? Should you not be allowed to give your children stuff?

Sam Walton worked his butt off making his company, and gave his children shares in the company he made. I don't see a problem with that, whether they 'worked for it' or not.

I already agreed with you. No need to go on about how great the rich are. I think it does say a lot about their character. Here they have had it so easy and yet they pay others so little.

We just covered this. If you take all that money, and give it to the employees, it's pennies. It won't change their life or anything.

The people who determine wages, are the customers. We determine wages by how much we are willing to pay for products and services.

You just up the price of goods in order to pay employees $15/hr+ and the result is, we'll all go to a different store, with lower prices, and all those $15/hour employees will be unemployed after Walmart closes.

Ok keep paying employees so little that they need to collect welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Let me see... If I make 11K a year I get decent supplement for Obamacare. But I need to make more so I can have car payment. So, I get the second job that increases by yearly salary to say, 17K. Looks good but wait, I get less subsidy now for insurance I don't need.

The incentive is not there to EARN more money when it is given to you first without anything in trade from the recipient.

Obamacare is a wage cap on the poor working class.

Surprised the left support it

-Geaux

Only fools think they can live without health insurance for long. Suckers bet

I have for 20 years. What is your definition of "long"?

I went 7 years without taking a sick day from work. I went 20 years without seeing a doctor. Then I woke up one morning blind in one eye.

You don't need insurance until you do.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes cutting taxes with no strings attached has a long history of working great.

But it does. If you cut the social security tax alone, that would increase everyone's pay by 7%. Instant 7% raise.

And see, like I said, if you have strings attatched, then you can't count on it. If you can't count on it, then you are not going to do it.

Remember, a tax deduction only come into effect when you file your taxes. In the mean time, you still have to pay taxes throughout the year.

So giving a tax deduction, doesn't change how much money the company has for 11 months out of the year. The fiscal constraints that determine wages remain exactly the same.

The only solution that would make a difference is if you actually have a guarantee that you won't pay tax. Then you can pay employees more, knowing you won't get nailed at the end of the year.

Besides that.... no matter what the company does with that money, it will be a benefit to the everyone. If they cut prices on products, that benefits society. If they invest more into capital investment, that will create jobs and boost the economy. If they give out wage hikes, that will benefit employees.

So I'm all for zero tax, no matter what they do with it.

So you cut social security tax when these big corporations no longer give good retirement benefits? Most people are going to have to use social security as their retirement and I think it's already looking to be low on funds.

I was talking about corporate tax. And if you give incentives for companies to have lower taxes they will take advantage of it. With execs making millions I'm sure they can figure it out.

Well fine, but that's how that works. Customers and employees pay all the tax. Corporations, just between the customers and employees. If you tax away the companies profits, that has to come from somewhere.... either lower wages, or higher prices, or less investment, which means fewer future jobs and wealth.

Either way, the money is coming from us the employees, or us the customers, or both.

All tax, effects either the customer or the employee.

The myth of the left, is that you can increase tax, and have it only effect "the company" as if the company is has this magic pile of cash. Or only effect the share holders, which it won't. Because if the share holders are not paid enough to justify their investment into the company, they'll tear the company apart and get their money back, and once again the employees are unemployed, and the customers end up paying more for products and services.

Walmart will likely hire and employ 100,000 people next year, because of their $13 billion in investment. New stores, and new distribution centers, as well as truck drivers and trucks. Not including the hundreds of construction projects employing workers.

Would they have employed more people if they had more of that profit not taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Would they have employed fewer people if they had even more profit taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Ultimately we pay the tax either way. You are never going to have any system by which the people running the business pay that tax. Every country that has tried that, has had the rich pack up their businesses, and leave. France, Venezuela, Argentina, California.... on and on and on, and those are just modern examples.

France's unemployment rate for people under 25 is over 25%. Are they better off with the wealthy not employing them at all, because they left?

If you increase social security tax, in order to shore up SS, that means lower wages. That's how that works. I'd rather have the money. I'd be much better off myself.

 

[Andylusion]

I already agreed with you. No need to go on about how great the rich are. I think it does say a lot about their character. Here they have had it so easy and yet they pay others so little.

We just covered this. If you take all that money, and give it to the employees, it's pennies. It won't change their life or anything.

The people who determine wages, are the customers. We determine wages by how much we are willing to pay for products and services.

You just up the price of goods in order to pay employees $15/hr+ and the result is, we'll all go to a different store, with lower prices, and all those $15/hour employees will be unemployed after Walmart closes.

Ok keep paying employees so little that they need to collect welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

Ok just increase wages and prices until no customers shop there anymore, and all the employees are unemployed collecting welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

My solution, cut welfare. Government shrinks. Problem solved.

 

[Brain357]

But it does. If you cut the social security tax alone, that would increase everyone's pay by 7%. Instant 7% raise.

And see, like I said, if you have strings attatched, then you can't count on it. If you can't count on it, then you are not going to do it.

Remember, a tax deduction only come into effect when you file your taxes. In the mean time, you still have to pay taxes throughout the year.

So giving a tax deduction, doesn't change how much money the company has for 11 months out of the year. The fiscal constraints that determine wages remain exactly the same.

The only solution that would make a difference is if you actually have a guarantee that you won't pay tax. Then you can pay employees more, knowing you won't get nailed at the end of the year.

Besides that.... no matter what the company does with that money, it will be a benefit to the everyone. If they cut prices on products, that benefits society. If they invest more into capital investment, that will create jobs and boost the economy. If they give out wage hikes, that will benefit employees.

So I'm all for zero tax, no matter what they do with it.

So you cut social security tax when these big corporations no longer give good retirement benefits? Most people are going to have to use social security as their retirement and I think it's already looking to be low on funds.

I was talking about corporate tax. And if you give incentives for companies to have lower taxes they will take advantage of it. With execs making millions I'm sure they can figure it out.

Well fine, but that's how that works. Customers and employees pay all the tax. Corporations, just between the customers and employees. If you tax away the companies profits, that has to come from somewhere.... either lower wages, or higher prices, or less investment, which means fewer future jobs and wealth.

Either way, the money is coming from us the employees, or us the customers, or both.

All tax, effects either the customer or the employee.

The myth of the left, is that you can increase tax, and have it only effect "the company" as if the company is has this magic pile of cash. Or only effect the share holders, which it won't. Because if the share holders are not paid enough to justify their investment into the company, they'll tear the company apart and get their money back, and once again the employees are unemployed, and the customers end up paying more for products and services.

Walmart will likely hire and employ 100,000 people next year, because of their $13 billion in investment. New stores, and new distribution centers, as well as truck drivers and trucks. Not including the hundreds of construction projects employing workers.

Would they have employed more people if they had more of that profit not taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Would they have employed fewer people if they had even more profit taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Ultimately we pay the tax either way. You are never going to have any system by which the people running the business pay that tax. Every country that has tried that, has had the rich pack up their businesses, and leave. France, Venezuela, Argentina, California.... on and on and on, and those are just modern examples.

France's unemployment rate for people under 25 is over 25%. Are they better off with the wealthy not employing them at all, because they left?

If you increase social security tax, in order to shore up SS, that means lower wages. That's how that works. I'd rather have the money. I'd be much better off myself.

So do you have some answer for how to balance the budget then? I'm still pretty sure my idea would work quite well. Certainly would be an improvement over how things are now.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

One of the many funny things about these lolberals is that when you explore their talking pointless du jour (regardless of which day and which talking pointless we are addressing), THEY USUALLY TEND TO BACK PEDDLE PRETTY DAMN QUICK.

For instance, the current meme is to bleat about "income inequality."

But try to get the goobers to discuss it for a while and they sprint away. What IS "income inequality?" Well, most folks would immediately compare it to its logical antithesis: income equality.

But nooooo.

THAT's not what those schmucks are "talking" about.

Just try to get them to pin their own rhetoric down, however. If the discussion is NOT about income inequality versus income EQUALITY, then what DO they mean when they attempt to yap about income INequality?

Damned if they know -- or will coherently address it.

 

[bripat9643]

employee welfare and corporate welfare......isn't that the inevitable grand result of the Socialism scheme you lefties keep promoting....? why are you complaining about it...?

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

I am a moderate that wants smart government that respects our rights. On the other hand I believe that government needs to regulate and invest in areas that advance our country. Just being for small government for the heck of it isn't all that wise.

We can agree in some areas like welfare and spying as they are clearly over the line.

You have just been nominated for the Oxymoron of the Month award for your entry "smart government!"

Congratulations!

If you seriously believe that the kind of rabble that puts a Nazi Pelosi or Harry Reid or even Jim Boehner in office can ever vote for "smart government," then you are terminally naïve.

 

[Brain357]

We just covered this. If you take all that money, and give it to the employees, it's pennies. It won't change their life or anything.

The people who determine wages, are the customers. We determine wages by how much we are willing to pay for products and services.

You just up the price of goods in order to pay employees $15/hr+ and the result is, we'll all go to a different store, with lower prices, and all those $15/hour employees will be unemployed after Walmart closes.

Ok keep paying employees so little that they need to collect welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

Ok just increase wages and prices until no customers shop there anymore, and all the employees are unemployed collecting welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

My solution, cut welfare. Government shrinks. Problem solved.

Ok cut welfare but do nothing to create more jobs. In 2 years a bunch of liberals get elected and welfare is back. You've solved nothing.

Or change the corporate tax code giving incentives for companies to employ here in the US, pay good wages, give good benefits, and offer good retirement. If a company does those things then make it 0. In the example of Walmart I believe that would open up billions for workers.

 

[bripat9643]

One of the many funny things about these lolberals is that when you explore their talking pointless du jour (regardless of which day and which talking pointless we are addressing), THEY USUALLY TEND TO BACK PEDDLE PRETTY DAMN QUICK.

For instance, the current meme is to bleat about "income inequality."

But try to get the goobers to discuss it for a while and they sprint away. What IS "income inequality?" Well, most folks would immediately compare it to its logical antithesis: income equality.

But nooooo.

THAT's not what those schmucks are "talking" about.

Just try to get them to pin their own rhetoric down, however. If the discussion is NOT about income inequality versus income EQUALITY, then what DO they mean when they attempt to yap about income INequality?

Damned if they know -- or will coherently address it.

It means what liberals always mean no matter what they are ostensibly talking about: they want more of you money and more of your freedom.