Yes, by all means, let’s talk about income inequality

[Stephanie]

Just a horrible man, (Divider in Chief) and biggest divider of this country ever...This is the type of Hope and Change you voted for?
links in article at site

SNIP:

posted at 10:01 am on December 8, 2013 by Jazz Shaw
I’m not sure exactly when the phrase “income inequality” crept into the US political lexicon, but it’s clearly here to stay… at least for a while. You’ve been hearing it a lot these days, from Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren and even the Pope. Never being one to miss a chance to talk about anything except Obamacare, even the President has promised to make the issue his next in a long series of pivots.

Weakened by problems with his health-care initiative, President Obama turned back to the economy last week to rebalance his presidency with a speech about income inequality. He said he would devote much of his remaining time in office to the issue, calling it the “defining challenge of our time.” The bigger issue is how much he can or will do about it…

Obama has talked about the issue before. His advisers can draw a direct line from his speech in Osawatomie, Kan., in December 2011 through the 2012 campaign, when he made middle-class concerns the centerpiece of his message against Mitt Romney. Jon Favreau, one of his former speechwriters, said in an e-mail that those same themes were part of his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But he has rarely been as direct or as pointed about the problem as he was at a community center in Southeast Washington last week.

Yes, Barack Obama is jumping on the income inequality bandwagon. He’s even gone so far as to recently say that it threatens the American dream. So is this a problem? Of course it is. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum it’s impossible to deny that there are far too many people among the working class who aren’t earning enough to enjoy the dream of prosperity which America has typically embodied. The real question – and one of the defining schisms between the two major political parties – is what to do about it. But to really wrap our heads around the question it’s important to understand the widely differing approaches supported by liberals and conservatives and the core cause of the problem.

You don’t have to look far to see the “solutions” being pushed by the progressive arm of American politics, and they are plans which tie directly into their definition of what’s wrong with the system in the first place. The problem, to hear them describe it, is that there are a relative handful of greedy rich people who are keeping everyone else down. Their plans to address this situation fall essentially into two basic categories, each involving the guiding hand of a giant, benevolent government. The first prong of this two tine fork is to have the government force employers give everyone a huge pay raise.

But since that won’t do enough to directly punish those sneering, snarling Fat Cats at the top of the ladder, they also want to do more – a lot more – to take away as much money from the highly successful as possible. If we could only manage that, they say, the gulf between High and Low would be significantly closed. This need to punish those who have risen high is demonstrated in the Washington Post article referenced above in a quote from Democrat pollster Geoff Garin.

“There is certainly a very deep feeling of resentment about the privileges that the people at the very top enjoy and that we have a system that is geared to gilding the lily to people at the top, as opposed to rewarding hard work and effort by middle-class and working-class Americans,” he said. “I think there is a deep desire in the country to unstack the deck economically.”

And how do progressives plan to “fix” this portion of the problem? The answer is as old as politics. We’ll simply keep raising taxes on those who have more until equality is achieved.

ALL of it here

 

[Redfish]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

 

[Nyvin]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

 

[Seawytch]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

Before you can fix a problem, you have to recognize that there is one. The RW can't seem to recognize that there is an income inequality problem or they just don't see all the wealth concentrated at the top as being a problem.

I have a feeling they will come to regret that position.

 

[Darkwind]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

It is this kind of thinking that prompted Me to start the thread about 'The rule of Law'.

The Constitution CAN be changed. It cannot, however, be ignored.

You use the mechanisms built into the system to change the Constitution. You do not just force programs on people, ignoring the Constitution, because SOME people think that they don't want a country that doesn't use force to care of people in the manner they think they should be cared for.

There is never ONLY ONE way to achieve a thing. If the Constitution is in your way, then a mechanism for coping with loss should be found.

 

[Darkwind]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

Before you can fix a problem, you have to recognize that there is one. The RW can't seem to recognize that there is an income inequality problem or they just don't see all the wealth concentrated at the top as being a problem.

I have a feeling they will come to regret that position.

In the case of the progressives, to achieve an agenda, a problem must be created first, then the only solution is the one offered by progressives is acceptable.

This is what is happening in this country.

 

[Seawytch]

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

Before you can fix a problem, you have to recognize that there is one. The RW can't seem to recognize that there is an income inequality problem or they just don't see all the wealth concentrated at the top as being a problem.

I have a feeling they will come to regret that position.

In the case of the progressives, to achieve an agenda, a problem must be created first, then the only solution is the one offered by progressives is acceptable.

This is what is happening in this country.

Oh? How did "progressives" create the income inequality?

 

[gallantwarrior]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

First, describe definitively what are the problems? Second, how do you propose we specifically address the correction for the problems?

 

[RDD_1210]

Just a horrible man, (Divider in Chief) and biggest divider of this country ever...This is the type of Hope and Change you voted for?
links in article at site

SNIP:

posted at 10:01 am on December 8, 2013 by Jazz Shaw
I’m not sure exactly when the phrase “income inequality” crept into the US political lexicon, but it’s clearly here to stay… at least for a while. You’ve been hearing it a lot these days, from Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren and even the Pope. Never being one to miss a chance to talk about anything except Obamacare, even the President has promised to make the issue his next in a long series of pivots.

Weakened by problems with his health-care initiative, President Obama turned back to the economy last week to rebalance his presidency with a speech about income inequality. He said he would devote much of his remaining time in office to the issue, calling it the “defining challenge of our time.” The bigger issue is how much he can or will do about it…

Obama has talked about the issue before. His advisers can draw a direct line from his speech in Osawatomie, Kan., in December 2011 through the 2012 campaign, when he made middle-class concerns the centerpiece of his message against Mitt Romney. Jon Favreau, one of his former speechwriters, said in an e-mail that those same themes were part of his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But he has rarely been as direct or as pointed about the problem as he was at a community center in Southeast Washington last week.

Yes, Barack Obama is jumping on the income inequality bandwagon. He’s even gone so far as to recently say that it threatens the American dream. So is this a problem? Of course it is. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum it’s impossible to deny that there are far too many people among the working class who aren’t earning enough to enjoy the dream of prosperity which America has typically embodied. The real question – and one of the defining schisms between the two major political parties – is what to do about it. But to really wrap our heads around the question it’s important to understand the widely differing approaches supported by liberals and conservatives and the core cause of the problem.

You don’t have to look far to see the “solutions” being pushed by the progressive arm of American politics, and they are plans which tie directly into their definition of what’s wrong with the system in the first place. The problem, to hear them describe it, is that there are a relative handful of greedy rich people who are keeping everyone else down. Their plans to address this situation fall essentially into two basic categories, each involving the guiding hand of a giant, benevolent government. The first prong of this two tine fork is to have the government force employers give everyone a huge pay raise.

But since that won’t do enough to directly punish those sneering, snarling Fat Cats at the top of the ladder, they also want to do more – a lot more – to take away as much money from the highly successful as possible. If we could only manage that, they say, the gulf between High and Low would be significantly closed. This need to punish those who have risen high is demonstrated in the Washington Post article referenced above in a quote from Democrat pollster Geoff Garin.

“There is certainly a very deep feeling of resentment about the privileges that the people at the very top enjoy and that we have a system that is geared to gilding the lily to people at the top, as opposed to rewarding hard work and effort by middle-class and working-class Americans,” he said. “I think there is a deep desire in the country to unstack the deck economically.”

And how do progressives plan to “fix” this portion of the problem? The answer is as old as politics. We’ll simply keep raising taxes on those who have more until equality is achieved.

ALL of it here

You're poor, right?

I mean, you've told us you are yourself, in fact, poor.

So is that by choice? Did you choose to be poor? Are you lazy?

 

[Bloodrock44]

I don't consider it a problem. I don't owe you an income unless you work for it. I owe you an education. Take advantage of it , get a job and quit your whining.

 

[Darkwind]

Before you can fix a problem, you have to recognize that there is one. The RW can't seem to recognize that there is an income inequality problem or they just don't see all the wealth concentrated at the top as being a problem.

I have a feeling they will come to regret that position.

In the case of the progressives, to achieve an agenda, a problem must be created first, then the only solution is the one offered by progressives is acceptable.

This is what is happening in this country.

Oh? How did "progressives" create the income inequality?

Online Course: Reading Comprehension 101 - Certificate and CEUs

 

[Seawytch]

I don't consider it a problem. I don't owe you an income unless you work for it. I owe you an education. Take advantage of it , get a job and quit your whining.

That is the point you are obviously missing. We are working for it, just as hard as ever...we aren't getting PAID for it.

 

[Seawytch]

In the case of the progressives, to achieve an agenda, a problem must be created first, then the only solution is the one offered by progressives is acceptable.

This is what is happening in this country.

Oh? How did "progressives" create the income inequality?

Online Course: Reading Comprehension 101 - Certificate and CEUs

So you can't answer the question. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

How would you solve the problem?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

for our resident libtardians--------where is it written that incomes should be "equal"? where is income equalization in the constitution as a government duty?

You know, the constitution isn't a religion...it's a document of governance and is subject to change, like it has repeatedly over the years. Sometimes you guys fall back on "it's not in the constitution!!!" a little too often.

And it's not about what's in the constitution, it's what's good for the people in the country. Is it good that wages have been stagnate for the past 30 years? probably not. Is it good that the Waltons have more wealth then the bottom 40% of the country? probably not.

They're problems, problems we can solve...why shouldn't we solve them? It's the same as changing tax rates to solve problems or cutting programs to solve problems...it's all the same.

Before you can fix a problem, you have to recognize that there is one. The RW can't seem to recognize that there is an income inequality problem or they just don't see all the wealth concentrated at the top as being a problem.

I have a feeling they will come to regret that position.

What is your solution to the problem?

 

[Bloodrock44]

I don't consider it a problem. I don't owe you an income unless you work for it. I owe you an education. Take advantage of it , get a job and quit your whining.

That is the point you are obviously missing. We are working for it, just as hard as ever...we aren't getting PAID for it.

I didn't miss the point. I worked smarter and not harder. Got myself qualified for a higher paying job and guess what? I got it. Too many people aren't willing to improve themselves and still believe they are owed something.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The biggest problem facing America today is Obama and his Jihad on the Private Sector which he called "Behind enemy lines"

I reject the entire notion of "income inequality" as "a problem we must fix"

Incomes will always be unequal; that's life, that's human nature

Better to focus on how to grow the whole economy, build a better education system and for the most part, have a government that stays out of the way

 

[RDD_1210]

I don't consider it a problem. I don't owe you an income unless you work for it. I owe you an education. Take advantage of it , get a job and quit your whining.

That is the point you are obviously missing. We are working for it, just as hard as ever...we aren't getting PAID for it.

I didn't miss the point. I worked smarter and not harder. Got myself qualified for a higher paying job and guess what? I got it. Too many people aren't willing to improve themselves and still believe they are owed something.

Your corporate masters have trained you well.

 

[RDD_1210]

The biggest problem facing America today is Obama and his Jihad on the Private Sector which he called "Behind enemy lines"

I reject the entire notion of "income inequality" as "a problem we must fix"

Incomes will always be unequal; that's life, that's human nature

Better to focus on how to grow the whole economy, build a better education system and for the most part, have a government that stays out of the way

Do "Jihads on the private sector" = the DOW reaching all time record highs?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In a nutshell...everything that has caused wage stagnation, and now for the past 5 years - actual earnings DECLINE for the vast majority of Americans - has not only remained unchanged since Obama took office - but is actually worse than ever.
So is it Obama's fault? Um...no.
Is he doing anything about it other than lip service? Um...no.
Is he as corrupt by corporate interest as everyone else in Washington...completely.