Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

[Confounding]

Correct. We could use that money to create more government dependents. The problem in the US is we don't have enough government dependents now.

If people made more money at their jobs they wouldn't be so dependent on the government for help.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The money is there.

LOL!

Are you one of those people that think our country can operate on no taxes?

No.
Are you one of the people who thinks we can spend a couple of trillion more a year on giveaways, if we only spent zero on defense?

 

[Stephanie]

I wonder where he's been Donating that SIX figure salary he makes every year.

talk about grotesques . they sit on their butts mostly and most of them you never hear from. he was one before he got this notion he could be President.

 

[williepete]

Illustrating why Sanders won’t be the democratic nominee.

This sort of demagoguery is baseless.

Hasty generalization fallacy.






-----------

 

[Stephanie]

Six Conundrums of Socialism
Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.
January 13, 2015
Frontpagemag.com
0
Conundrum:

Free people are not equal.
Equal people are not free.

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one,
you'll probably never need one again.

The definition of the word Conundrum is: Something that is puzzling or confusing.

Here are six conundrums of socialism:

In the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.

These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works. And here's another one worth considering...

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?

What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.

Think about it.....

And Last but not least:

all of it here:
Six Conundrums of Socialism

 

[Slade3200]

To all you economists out there who don't think wealth distribution is a problem... Let me ask, what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%... How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%...

Why would all the money in the economy "flow up to the 1%"?

How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

Historically, how did poor and middle class people get money before?

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses. Just follow a dollar through the economy as people spend and you'll see where it ends up. Do you need more explanation or do you get it?

Historically our economy was much smaller and money circulated in a much more confined way. Through trade, our centralized banking system, and the emergence of these conglomerate corporations that buy up our small businesses and own most of everything we have a very different situation than we did 100 years ago. Right now the citizens taking out loans and government deficit spending pumps money into the economy, mostly focused at the bottom,but then it funnels up to the top as is the cycle. Finally, It gets burned through taxation.... I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy will play out for the poor and middle class.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have heard the term income inequality a lot over the past few years given that all jobs do not require the same levels of skill and experience and that all people do not have the same level of motivation and determination how would you ever make income equal?

Well, first of all those who shower after work, work harder than those who shower in the morning. Maybe we ought to pay wages based on calories expanded (not serious, but thought provoking I hope)

No one is suggesting that everyone be paid the same wage, or that the very rich pay 90% of their entire income to the federal government.

What Sen. Sanders is saying, what once was fair is no longer fair, and he is correct. That is why so many have been attracted to his message. We have seen our representative democracy slowly crumble and become a plutocracy, a nation run by a power elite who has great wealth or is owned by the very wealthy.

 

[williepete]

Income isn't distributed.

It's earned or not earned through various types of behaviors.

Productive versus irresponsible behavior accounts for a large portion of the inequality the leftists are railing against.






--------

 

[SwimExpert]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

So why do people nowadays settle for little in comparison?

 

[Slade3200]

Income isn't distributed.

It's earned or not earned through various types of behaviors.

Productive versus irresponsible behavior accounts for a large portion of the inequality the leftists are railing against.






--------

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To all you economists out there who don't think wealth distribution is a problem... Let me ask, what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%... How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%...

Why would all the money in the economy "flow up to the 1%"?

How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

Historically, how did poor and middle class people get money before?

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses. Just follow a dollar through the economy as people spend and you'll see where it ends up. Do you need more explanation or do you get it?

Historically our economy was much smaller and money circulated in a much more confined way. Through trade, our centralized banking system, and the emergence of these conglomerate corporations that buy up our small businesses and own most of everything we have a very different situation than we did 100 years ago. Right now the citizens taking out loans and government deficit spending pumps money into the economy, mostly focused at the bottom,but then it funnels up to the top as is the cycle. Finally, It gets burned through taxation.... I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy will play out for the poor and middle class.

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses.

GDP is $18.2 trillion a year. The top 1% get what, 22% of household income?
You think there is some limited number of dollars available to the lower 99%?
Once the 1% gets a dollar, it goes into hiding?

I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy

Why would cutting government spending shrink the economy?

 

[williepete]

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

I hear you. Our system could use some tweaking. And just note that wealth is not rewarded without risk. As an investor, I risk punishment as well as reward. If I'm rewarded for my smart investing, the tax man is right there to take his cut of my pie. If I'm punished for making a poor investment, the tax man is nowhere to be seen. I win, he wins. I lose, only I lose.

 

[blackhawk]

We have heard the term income inequality a lot over the past few years given that all jobs do not require the same levels of skill and experience and that all people do not have the same level of motivation and determination how would you ever make income equal?

Well, first of all those who shower after work, work harder than those who shower in the morning. Maybe we ought to pay wages based on calories expanded (not serious, but thought provoking I hope)

No one is suggesting that everyone be paid the same wage, or that the very rich pay 90% of their entire income to the federal government.

What Sen. Sanders is saying, what once was fair is no longer fair, and he is correct. That is why so many have been attracted to his message. We have seen our representative democracy slowly crumble and become a plutocracy, a nation run by a power elite who has great wealth or is owned by the very wealthy.

So enlighten us what would be fair that's the major problem with this unfair or inequality issue its easy to point to something and say it's unfair but no one ever tell you what would be fair.

 

[Slade3200]

To all you economists out there who don't think wealth distribution is a problem... Let me ask, what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%... How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%...

Why would all the money in the economy "flow up to the 1%"?

How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

Historically, how did poor and middle class people get money before?

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses. Just follow a dollar through the economy as people spend and you'll see where it ends up. Do you need more explanation or do you get it?

Historically our economy was much smaller and money circulated in a much more confined way. Through trade, our centralized banking system, and the emergence of these conglomerate corporations that buy up our small businesses and own most of everything we have a very different situation than we did 100 years ago. Right now the citizens taking out loans and government deficit spending pumps money into the economy, mostly focused at the bottom,but then it funnels up to the top as is the cycle. Finally, It gets burned through taxation.... I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy will play out for the poor and middle class.

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses.

GDP is $18.2 trillion a year. The top 1% get what, 22% of household income?
You think there is some limited number of dollars available to the lower 99%?
Once the 1% gets a dollar, it goes into hiding?

I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy

Why would cutting government spending shrink the economy?

Your right it would t shrink the economy, it slows its growth.

Yes I think there is more going up to the top earners than is going down, do they not save or spend internationally? Our economy is then dependent on these top earners spending domestically. Do you not think that is a tremendous amount of power and influence for one individual to have?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To all you economists out there who don't think wealth distribution is a problem... Let me ask, what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%... How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

what happens long term if we cut government spending and all our money flows through the economy and up to the top 1%...

Why would all the money in the economy "flow up to the 1%"?

How does that money get back down to the poor and middle class?

Historically, how did poor and middle class people get money before?

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses. Just follow a dollar through the economy as people spend and you'll see where it ends up. Do you need more explanation or do you get it?

Historically our economy was much smaller and money circulated in a much more confined way. Through trade, our centralized banking system, and the emergence of these conglomerate corporations that buy up our small businesses and own most of everything we have a very different situation than we did 100 years ago. Right now the citizens taking out loans and government deficit spending pumps money into the economy, mostly focused at the bottom,but then it funnels up to the top as is the cycle. Finally, It gets burned through taxation.... I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy will play out for the poor and middle class.

Money naturally flows to the Owners and up to the 1% who own the majority of our businesses.

GDP is $18.2 trillion a year. The top 1% get what, 22% of household income?
You think there is some limited number of dollars available to the lower 99%?
Once the 1% gets a dollar, it goes into hiding?

I'm trying to understand how cutting the government spending and shrinking the economy

Why would cutting government spending shrink the economy?

Your right it would t shrink the economy, it slows its growth.

Yes I think there is more going up to the top earners than is going down, do they not save or spend internationally? Our economy is then dependent on these top earners spending domestically. Do you not think that is a tremendous amount of power and influence for one individual to have?

Your right it would t shrink the economy, it slows its growth.

Why?

do they not save or spend internationally?

Don't you?

Do you not think that is a tremendous amount of power and influence for one individual to have?

One individual? What are you talking about?

 

[Slade3200]

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

I hear you. Our system could use some tweaking. And just note that wealth is not rewarded without risk. As an investor, I risk punishment as well as reward. If I'm rewarded for my smart investing, the tax man is right there to take his cut of my pie. If I'm punished for making a poor investment, the tax man is nowhere to be seen. I win, he wins. I lose, only I lose.

Yes you are right in one aspect but it goes beyond risky investments. For example I receive a great savings in taxes if I own a house. I get to write a chunk off. A renter with the same Income and expenses as I, pays more to Uncle Sam while also burning money in rent over my Payments towards an appreciating asset. Yes I took a risk with my home loan and I understand why the tax incentives are in place however is still presents an imbalance

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Income isn't distributed.

It's earned or not earned through various types of behaviors.

Productive versus irresponsible behavior accounts for a large portion of the inequality the leftists are railing against.






--------

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

It's not causing any problem because people don't get or stay wealthy because of the tax codes. They get wealthy investing, working, and having businesses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True that income is earned but wealth is rewarded... Just look at our tax code. There is a definite advantage given to the wealthy While I see the reason and benefits for some of these incentives/advantages, I also understand the tremendous problem it is causing.

I hear you. Our system could use some tweaking. And just note that wealth is not rewarded without risk. As an investor, I risk punishment as well as reward. If I'm rewarded for my smart investing, the tax man is right there to take his cut of my pie. If I'm punished for making a poor investment, the tax man is nowhere to be seen. I win, he wins. I lose, only I lose.

Yes you are right in one aspect but it goes beyond risky investments. For example I receive a great savings in taxes if I own a house. I get to write a chunk off. A renter with the same Income and expenses as I, pays more to Uncle Sam while also burning money in rent over my Payments towards an appreciating asset. Yes I took a risk with my home loan and I understand why the tax incentives are in place however is still presents an imbalance

As a landlord I can tell you that all costs are passed on to the tenants as rent. The more I don't have to spend, the less I can charge for rent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct. We could use that money to create more government dependents. The problem in the US is we don't have enough government dependents now.

If people made more money at their jobs they wouldn't be so dependent on the government for help.

Correct, that's why we need less government. Less government, people will work more hours or try harder to make themselves worth more per hour. The way things are now, nobody wants to work hard because the more you work, the more you take home. The more you take home, the less government will give you. So it makes sense to make less money and let government fill in the blanks.

 

[Confounding]

So it makes sense to make less money and let government fill in the blanks.

Yeah, except not really. You're delusional if you think most welfare recipients are living comfortable lives that they're happy with. To qualify for aid you have to have a completely shit income.