There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

[PoliticalChic]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

Bs. For example, back before corporations had the option to move their plants to Mexico, labor could organize and demand a fair wage.

A middle class emerged. But the rich caught back. Slowly from the late 70s to now the rich have been getting richer with their economic policies and the middle class has disappeared

Nafta, invented by bush and fully supported by republicans

Jobs Americans won’t do saved the rich billions and cost the middle class billions

Buying cheap shit from China.

Tax breaks for the rich

Rising healthcare costs

Cuts to social programs.

The rich are doing great. Maga

Here, in America, there is no perennial class of 'the rich.'

"...economic mobility. About 60 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile ten years later. During the same decade, almost 40 percent of the richest households fell to a lower quintile. This is a nation where you can rise or fall. It is a nation where you can climb the economic ladder based not on who you are born to, or what class you are born into, but based on your talents, your passion, your perseverance, and the content of your character." https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_05_Imprimis.pdf


You prove that there is a perennial group of stupid folks.......are you their spokesperson?

What country are you posting from?

 

[basquebromance]

The suffering of minorities from wealth inequality has generated a terrible ambivalence in the soul of white america, as we see here!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The suffering of minorities from wealth inequality has generated a terrible ambivalence in the soul of white america, as we see here!

As we see where?

It is not the disparity of wealth that is the problem, it is how it came to be.
And the "terrible ambivalence in the soul" is the jealousy and greed that Liberals/Democrats have inserted.


Try to construct a documented, supported post, not the sort of drivel you just did.

 

[Ernie S.]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

How about not playing the victim card? Why doesn't this "Professor" claim that parents that do not read to their kids are disadvantaging them?
Why is it always the fault of those that play by the rules? It's not my fault that some progressive would rather drink zinfandel and smoke weed than read to their child?

Why is it the fault of the NRA that young black kids are shooting each other in Chicago?

Why is it the fault of a guy that worked his ass off to get an engineering degree that a single mother in DC doesn't earn the same salary at McDonald's?

 

[Terri4Trump]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

So you think that doctors should earn the same wage as a ditch digger?

 

[Ernie S.]

Regan started the inequality , Bush Jr, expanded it and now with Tramp the income inequality is even worst than ever.

Lyndon Johnson started income inequality.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[rightwinger]

Regan started the inequality , Bush Jr, expanded it and now with Tramp the income inequality is even worst than ever.

Lyndon Johnson started income inequality.

Reagan made it an art form

 

[Ernie S.]

The suffering of minorities from wealth inequality has generated a terrible ambivalence in the soul of white america, as we see here!

Any ambivalence is due to the fact that we are not to blame for the fact that others are not as prosperous.

 

[Ernie S.]

Regan started the inequality , Bush Jr, expanded it and now with Tramp the income inequality is even worst than ever.

Lyndon Johnson started income inequality.

Reagan made it an art form

I'm sure you can tell us all why you think that way? I know I can support my position.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The suffering of minorities from wealth inequality has generated a terrible ambivalence in the soul of white america, as we see here!

No wealth inequality in Cuba therefore no suffering of minorities, eh?

 

[WillPower]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

They've allowed 22M invaders to stream into our country and wonder why there are homeless? These invaders took the low-cost housing, leaving genuine Americans out on the street. Income inequality? Those behind the invaders know they're working for peanuts...they created the inquality with their open border.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

How about not playing the victim card? Why doesn't this "Professor" claim that parents that do not read to their kids are disadvantaging them?
Why is it always the fault of those that play by the rules? It's not my fault that some progressive would rather drink zinfandel and smoke weed than read to their child?

Why is it the fault of the NRA that young black kids are shooting each other in Chicago?

Why is it the fault of a guy that worked his ass off to get an engineering degree that a single mother in DC doesn't earn the same salary at McDonald's?

Good to see you again, Ernie.


My answer to your query is that the central perq of Liberalism is that it is never the fault of the 'victim,' They always have to have failed due to some bête noire.....no pun intended.


To secure the votes of the 'victims,' the Liberals/Democrats must tell them that they bear no responsibility for their fate.....



Even when faced with the 'rules' These:

It has long been know that simple, traditional, rules would keep anyone....anyone....from ending up in poverty. They are no secret:


" The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue.
And presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been quoting their findings on the campaign trail.
Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.


If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent .Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.

Applies to everyone
These rules apply to all races and ethnic groups. Breaking these rules is becoming more commonplace, unfortunately, for all racial groups."
Three rules for staying out of poverty

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I make less than Jeff Bezos. Not fair.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

They've allowed 22M invaders to stream into our country and wonder why there are homeless? These invaders took the low-cost housing, leaving genuine Americans out on the street. Income inequality? Those behind the invaders know they're working for peanuts...they created the inquality with their open border.

1. Who are 'they'?

This?

Obama's US Civil Rights Commission, 2010 Report:
"The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is pleased to transmit this report, The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers. A panel of experts briefed members of the Commission on April 4, 2008 regarding the evidence for economic loss and job opportunity costs to black workers attributable to illegal immigration. The panelists also described non-economic factors contributing to the depression of black wages and employment rates.

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."
USCCR: Page Not Found

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf



2. "..22M invaders..."

There are between 60 and 80 million illegal aliens residing in the USofA.
That's why you must press #1 for English.


3. I agree with your point, as a major contributor.....but poor parenting of American children is higher on the list.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I make less than Jeff Bezos. Not fair.

You should learn to spin straw into gold, as I have.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I make less than Jeff Bezos. Not fair.

You should learn to spin straw into gold, as I have.

LOL right. The Leftists are extremely stupid

 

[WillPower]

2. "..22M invaders..."

There are between 60 and 80 million illegal aliens residing in the USofA.
That's why you must press #1 for English.


3. I agree with your point, as a major contributor.....but poor parenting of American children is higher on the list.

I believe my 22M is closer to the number.....but it's surely not the 11M we've said for years. If it's as high as you say, Hillary would have won California by more than 3M and Cruz wouldn't have beaten Beto in Texas.

 

[WillPower]

I make less than Jeff Bezos. Not fair.

The other day somebody said "do you know how hard it is to spend that kind of money?"....Reminded me of the Eddie Murphy movie where he and Dan Akroyd? had 24 hours to spend a fortune and ran out of ideas....

 

[Cellblock2429]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

/——/ What’s wrong with Wall Street?