35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[danielpalos]

Sure; I will do it merely because I have a social work ethic; unlike the lazy right who need to be spoon fed information by their Nanny.

Ordos China A Modern Ghost Town - Photo Essays - TIME

There is no such thing as a "social work ethic".....

actually there is.
anyone that does social work of any type needs to be certified, this requires college credit, one of the courses is ethics.

Which explains the enormous amount of fraud that happens in welfare and transfer payment programs....

The right has nothing but diversions because they are too socially lazy to have a hard work ethic when it comes to having a clue or a Cause; or even a valid argument. Yet, they don't mind telling the least wealthy that it is their fault because they don't work hard enough.

Define "cause"......
Bubby...most poor people are poor because they indeed do not A) work hard enough B) lack the skills to improve their income C) even if they did accrue additional assets through their work, would spend it unwisely and end up where they started. Broke.....
Define "socially lazy"....
I am curious as to the meaning of these terms you use.......

Socially lazy means just making stuff up for your stockholders instead of learning more about the issues and having a rational argument that does not include fallacies since they are errors in reasoning.

Only the Right claims they are not mere cronies under our form of capitalism; but gainsay their propaganda and rhetoric by being too lazy to work hard to acquire and possess valid arguments.

I guess the Right likes to socialize their work ethic by telling the least wealthy they are too lazy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").

The main econo-social "problem" to be addressed in the U.S.is persistent poverty. The problem is NOT that "some people are earning too much," or "some people HAVE too much." If the economy were a zero-sum game, then the problem MIGHT be that some people HAVE too much, but as anyone with more than a third-grader's understanding of economics knows, the economy is not a zero-sum game. Entrepreneurs and inventors CREATE wealth all the time, and it does not come at the expense of anyone else.

Expressing the Problem as "Income Inequality" takes the focus off the real problem (persistent poverty) and directs it at success, triggering the all-too-human emotion of ENVY. And when you couple ENVY with ignorance about economics, the result is hatred of success, and the desire to confiscate income/wealth, and distribute it to The Poor. My own beloved Pope Frank is currently the world's most recognizable economic ignoramous, having been totally taken in by the insidious fiction.

You wanna deal with the real problem of poverty? Get people to (1) finish high school, (2) not have kids before getting married, and (3) get a job - any job. These three simple measures reduce one's chances of living in persistent poverty by 80%, regardless of your racial, ethnic, or economic background.

And while it's true that not everyone who is at the top of the economic pyramid got there through a combination of hard work, intelligence, and prudent risk-taking, by creating the fiction that "Rich People are taking what ought to be YOURS," you discourage the very kinds of activities that might bring about economic elevation of those at the bottom.

I've been harping on the same points for years.
With these lib/progressives, it is of no use. They have been convinced that those in the upper reaches of the economic scale somehow "owe" them....
The typical lib progressive also has accepted as fact the "Keyensian theory of the Zero sum Game"
They use terms they have heard such as "pie" "Share"...They pull out of their ass anecdotal snippets such as the "CEO if a company made X times more than the wvg worker and makes Y times the avg worker. As if that mattered. The incorrect theory behind that whine is that if the company wasn't paying that one guy, it could afford to pay all of those guys....That's a fallacy because the two sources of those pay are mutually exclusive.
The irony of all of this is that a majority of wealthy people contribute to liberal causes and vote for liberal candidates....The voting records and patterns bear this out. Some of the wealthiest voting precincts in the very Blue northeast vote in virtual lockstep for democrats.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How much hard work is it to simply hire entire departments to help you conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate?

Congratulations. You just described how governments, especially the federal government, go about their business.

I guess the private sector just plagiarizes the public sector due to their alleged worth for equal pay?

In your possession,is there a "Complete Guide to Non Sequiturs".?...
Either that or you are a candidate for the most intellectually vacant poster on USMB for the year 2015

How was that a non-sequitur. Or, do you habitually make stuff up for your stockholders?

Non sequitur....A statement unrelated to the subject matter at hand.

"my stock holders"?
I own some stock....That's it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").

Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.

Why are you such a whiner?

 

[auditor0007]

35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality - Salon.com

Interesting and disturbing.

The biggest problem is that one side believes making the rich even richer will somehow trickle down to everyone else, and we'll all do well. On the other side, their is a real dislike for the wealthy and this idea that we should pay everyone a living wage. The biggest question is what is a living wage? Many like that $15 per hour minimum, and that does seem to be the gold standard on far left. Both sides are way off base. Helping make the wealthy wealthier is just stupid. They can do that on their own without all kinds of advantages given to them by government. On the other side, the minimum wage should be raised, but not to $15 per hour.

The biggest issue is getting better pay for those in the middle. Unfortunately, by destroying unions, there is no driving force behind middle class wages. The dumbest thing about that is that much of the middle class supports this to their own detriment. Go figure. It isn't about the rich being too rich. There have always been super wealthy people, and their always will be. The key is for them not to gain their wealth by crushing the middle and lower classes to get it. In the long run it is bad business anyway, because the middle and lower income earners are the driving force of the economy. The reason our economy has not been growing at a stronger pace is due to the fact that middle and lower income earners have seen their wages stagnate.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is no such thing as a "social work ethic".....

actually there is.
anyone that does social work of any type needs to be certified, this requires college credit, one of the courses is ethics.

Which explains the enormous amount of fraud that happens in welfare and transfer payment programs....

The right has nothing but diversions because they are too socially lazy to have a hard work ethic when it comes to having a clue or a Cause; or even a valid argument. Yet, they don't mind telling the least wealthy that it is their fault because they don't work hard enough.

Define "cause"......
Bubby...most poor people are poor because they indeed do not A) work hard enough B) lack the skills to improve their income C) even if they did accrue additional assets through their work, would spend it unwisely and end up where they started. Broke.....
Define "socially lazy"....
I am curious as to the meaning of these terms you use.......

Socially lazy means just making stuff up for your stockholders instead of learning more about the issues and having a rational argument that does not include fallacies since they are errors in reasoning.

Only the Right claims they are not mere cronies under our form of capitalism; but gainsay their propaganda and rhetoric by being too lazy to work hard to acquire and possess valid arguments.

I guess the Right likes to socialize their work ethic by telling the least wealthy they are too lazy.

Again with the "stockholders"....What the fuck are you blabbering about?
Dude, are you bereft of any knowledge of punctuation or sentence construction? No one can understand your posts.
Did you make it past the 6th grade? Do you have a job?....It is said that an IQ test cannot be 'failed'...Obviously no one thought of you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality - Salon.com

Interesting and disturbing.

The biggest problem is that one side believes making the rich even richer will somehow trickle down to everyone else, and we'll all do well. On the other side, their is a real dislike for the wealthy and this idea that we should pay everyone a living wage. The biggest question is what is a living wage? Many like that $15 per hour minimum, and that does seem to be the gold standard on far left. Both sides are way off base. Helping make the wealthy wealthier is just stupid. They can do that on their own without all kinds of advantages given to them by government. On the other side, the minimum wage should be raised, but not to $15 per hour.

The biggest issue is getting better pay for those in the middle. Unfortunately, by destroying unions, there is no driving force behind middle class wages. The dumbest thing about that is that much of the middle class supports this to their own detriment. Go figure. It isn't about the rich being too rich. There have always been super wealthy people, and their always will be. The key is for them not to gain their wealth by crushing the middle and lower classes to get it. In the long run it is bad business anyway, because the middle and lower income earners are the driving force of the economy. The reason our economy has not been growing at a stronger pace is due to the fact that middle and lower income earners have seen their wages stagnate.

Making the rich richer".....That in and of itself is a fallacy. No one is making policy to enrich any one. Despite the sometimes crushing federal policy there is in fact no one who does not try to enrich their financial standing. We do that on our own. We work. We invest. We save. We have 401k's and IRA's.....We have pension plans.
The trickle down effect as described by the left is so far from the true meaning of trickle down it is almost laughable....Trickle down in no way resembles the imaginary rich guy who occasionally channels his inner "Nice Ebeneezer Scrooge" on Christmas Day....But that it exactly how those on the left view trickle down...Amusing indeed how anyone could buy into such nonsense

 

[thereisnospoon]

35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality - Salon.com

Interesting and disturbing.

The biggest problem is that one side believes making the rich even richer will somehow trickle down to everyone else, and we'll all do well. On the other side, their is a real dislike for the wealthy and this idea that we should pay everyone a living wage. The biggest question is what is a living wage? Many like that $15 per hour minimum, and that does seem to be the gold standard on far left. Both sides are way off base. Helping make the wealthy wealthier is just stupid. They can do that on their own without all kinds of advantages given to them by government. On the other side, the minimum wage should be raised, but not to $15 per hour.

The biggest issue is getting better pay for those in the middle. Unfortunately, by destroying unions, there is no driving force behind middle class wages. The dumbest thing about that is that much of the middle class supports this to their own detriment. Go figure. It isn't about the rich being too rich. There have always been super wealthy people, and their always will be. The key is for them not to gain their wealth by crushing the middle and lower classes to get it. In the long run it is bad business anyway, because the middle and lower income earners are the driving force of the economy. The reason our economy has not been growing at a stronger pace is due to the fact that middle and lower income earners have seen their wages stagnate.

"The biggest issue is getting better pay for those in the middle."....
Question....How does one go about doing that?

 

[danielpalos]

How much hard work is it to simply hire entire departments to help you conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate?

Congratulations. You just described how governments, especially the federal government, go about their business.

I guess the private sector just plagiarizes the public sector due to their alleged worth for equal pay?

In your possession,is there a "Complete Guide to Non Sequiturs".?...
Either that or you are a candidate for the most intellectually vacant poster on USMB for the year 2015

How was that a non-sequitur. Or, do you habitually make stuff up for your stockholders?

Non sequitur....A statement unrelated to the subject matter at hand.

"my stock holders"?
I own some stock....That's it.

You are the one that claimed it was how the public sector works; i merely commented that the private sector must plagiarize from the public sector as that form of "equality" in pay. still relevant for banter purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").

Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.

Why are you such a whiner?

Why do you have nothing but the laziness of fallacy instead of better arguments? Is it easier to tell the least wealthy to work harder than to work harder yourself for a better argument.

 

[danielpalos]

actually there is.
anyone that does social work of any type needs to be certified, this requires college credit, one of the courses is ethics.

Which explains the enormous amount of fraud that happens in welfare and transfer payment programs....

The right has nothing but diversions because they are too socially lazy to have a hard work ethic when it comes to having a clue or a Cause; or even a valid argument. Yet, they don't mind telling the least wealthy that it is their fault because they don't work hard enough.

Define "cause"......
Bubby...most poor people are poor because they indeed do not A) work hard enough B) lack the skills to improve their income C) even if they did accrue additional assets through their work, would spend it unwisely and end up where they started. Broke.....
Define "socially lazy"....
I am curious as to the meaning of these terms you use.......

Socially lazy means just making stuff up for your stockholders instead of learning more about the issues and having a rational argument that does not include fallacies since they are errors in reasoning.

Only the Right claims they are not mere cronies under our form of capitalism; but gainsay their propaganda and rhetoric by being too lazy to work hard to acquire and possess valid arguments.

I guess the Right likes to socialize their work ethic by telling the least wealthy they are too lazy.

Again with the "stockholders"....What the fuck are you blabbering about?
Dude, are you bereft of any knowledge of punctuation or sentence construction? No one can understand your posts.
Did you make it past the 6th grade? Do you have a job?....It is said that an IQ test cannot be 'failed'...Obviously no one thought of you.

Only the Right claims they are not mere cronies under our form of capitalism; but gainsay their propaganda and rhetoric by being too lazy to work hard to acquire and possess valid arguments.

I guess the Right likes to socialize their work ethic by telling the least wealthy they are too lazy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality - Salon.com

Interesting and disturbing.

"the Middle Class has been buried these past 4 years" Joe Biden 2012, describing the success of Obamanomics to destroy the US Middle Class

Do remember the GOP shutting down the government because the wealthy would not continue to receive more tax breaks...

The government was shut down for 4 years?

Obama threatened to withhold Social Security checks unless he got his way

I think you better off stop read right wing garbage websites and actually understand the law. There was no money to cover the checks...

Your lack of understanding of the way government works is amusing
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - CBS News

Umm THat's bullshit....Social Security falls under the category of 'non discretionary spending'....SS cannot be withheld.
What's amusing is you find your lack of understanding of government functions to be amusing.
Oh and of course we would all be better off just absorbing the nonsense the main stream media feeds the public.. Nonsense which comes straight from the White House.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").

Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.

Why are you such a whiner?

Why do you have nothing but the laziness of fallacy instead of better arguments? Is it easier to tell the least wealthy to work harder than to work harder yourself for a better argument.

I don't argue. I state facts. And you ARE a complainer.
Now, you've been told how this works. If one wants to move forward in their financial endeavors it is up to them to work to improve themselves.
Very simple.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Have y'all "read" the latest memo from the far left; they are wondering why we don't just expatriate our wealthiest to Third World nation-States so they can show the world how a "hard work" ethic can solve world poverty.

No..And no one with half a brain would believe or bother to read such tripe

 

[thereisnospoon]

You have an example of this corporate welfare?

One example of subsidies is USA's military providing protection for oil companies operating in the middle east. Including deaths and injuries to servicemen protecting these for profit companies and the american taxpayers footing the bill, sometimes health care costs for life for some service men, the oil companies are getting a pretty sweet deal. And sometimes they manage to pay no taxes at all, like exxon. Since oil products are one of usa's biggest exports, it's certainly not about getting oil to the homefront or america won't survive.

The Surprising Truth About Oil and Gas Company Corporate Tax Rates - US News

Another who cannot understand what subsidies means? I pretty much gave you the definition....

What money did the US Government give to these oil companies?

BTW....Us military protecting American interests pretty much sums up what their mission statement is...and the first priority of our government is to protect our interests.....

Protection is NOT subsidies....try again.

Protection is a subsidy when that company chooses to work in dangerous areas... How is it in US interest to spend $2+ trillion on a war and
little under 15 billion on on renewable and energy efficiency in the last 10 years...


Over the 37-year period from the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) inception at the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 1978 through FY2014, federal funding for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 17% of the energy R&D total, compared with 15% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 38% for nuclear. For the 67-year period from 1948 through 2014, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 10% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 49% for nuclear.


View attachment 45041

So they continue spending more on Fossil Energy.

Darkwind you have been had... US with interest payments is racking up a bill of $6 trillion dollars on a war to secure oil in just one country.
The laugh is the Middle East doesn't sell oil to US (well in no real high quantities), but they sure as hell love the GOP fascination with

Make up your mind is it 2 trillion or 6 trillion or is it 18 trillion?

Where is the links to break down the cost of those two wars?

1. NEW YORK The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional$490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.Mar 14, 2013

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I just googled 'Cost of Iraq war'

Earlier it was $6 trillion per year....

 

[thereisnospoon]

"the Middle Class has been buried these past 4 years" Joe Biden 2012, describing the success of Obamanomics to destroy the US Middle Class

Do remember the GOP shutting down the government because the wealthy would not continue to receive more tax breaks...

The government was shut down for 4 years?

Obama threatened to withhold Social Security checks unless he got his way

I think you better off stop read right wing garbage websites and actually understand the law. There was no money to cover the checks...

Your lack of understanding of the way government works is amusing
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - CBS News

Isnt it funny that every time there is not enough money to send out checks, its never the bottom feeding leaches on welfare that are in question?
Those that worked their whole life can go without now, but those that do nothing for society are always protected.

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

Another run on sentence no one can decipher.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I couldn't keep reading, all that whiny crybaby bullshit that someone else cookie is bigger

That's the practical definition of class envy....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Isnt it funny that every time there is not enough money to send out checks, its never the bottom feeding leaches on welfare that are in question?
Those that worked their whole life can go without now, but those that do nothing for society are always protected.

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Hey genius....Whether or not narcotics are legal, there will always be a black market for narcotics. And it is that black market, which is the harbinger of all the crime associated with controlled substances.
Do you really believe the major drug cartels and local drug dealers are just going to go "oh well, lets close up shop"?.....If anything the legalization of controlled substances would increase crime. That's right, increase. The reason? The financial rewards are just too great.

 

[danielpalos]

The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").

Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.

Why are you such a whiner?

Why do you have nothing but the laziness of fallacy instead of better arguments? Is it easier to tell the least wealthy to work harder than to work harder yourself for a better argument.

I don't argue. I state facts. And you ARE a complainer.
Now, you've been told how this works. If one wants to move forward in their financial endeavors it is up to them to work to improve themselves.
Very simple.

I am not the one complaining about taxes, whiner.

 

[danielpalos]

Have y'all "read" the latest memo from the far left; they are wondering why we don't just expatriate our wealthiest to Third World nation-States so they can show the world how a "hard work" ethic can solve world poverty.

No..And no one with half a brain would believe or bother to read such tripe

No valid rebuttal? Why so lazy. Like you are ever going to convince the left you work hard at anything more than BS.