Dispelling Liberal Myths

[buckeye45_73]

1. Dugdale's point about Reagan's economic policies is correct. Nothing is "trickling down" to the poor. It is also a myth that our rich have become rich purely through ambition and hard work. While some have there is a certain segment of the 1% making money off already having money and connections earned generations before them. People like the Hiltons and Romneys come to mind. We also have big bankers who failed at their jobs, but the government considered them "too big to fail". They were bailed out by the taxpayers, and are still making millions in salaries. I could go on and on about the "hardworking" 1%.

.

Poor people are richer today than they were 30 years ago. So you're facts are incorrect.
Do you really think Paris Hilton does no work? Mitt Romney did not work? You have a lot to learn.

Until conservatives understand that there is a problem with the growing disparity in wealth, this country is going to continue heading down the wrong path. And this has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth or creating a socialist state.

Trickle down does not and has not worked. Economies grow when the bottom has purchasing power. The bigger the bottom the more purchasing power needed to grow the economy. Rich people do provide the means for that growth, but without everyone else being able to purchase goods and services, the economy will not grow. The rich do not create wealth; the ones buying the goods and services do.

This is so very basic it is hard to believe so many people do not understand this.

Can we look at athletes and movie stars? How about Lawyers?

Here is a key....you dont get rich by working a job....... you need to be more specific......I'm sorry but if you flip burgers for 30 years......guess what. you in some trouble.......

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. Dugdale's point about Reagan's economic policies is correct. Nothing is "trickling down" to the poor. It is also a myth that our rich have become rich purely through ambition and hard work. While some have there is a certain segment of the 1% making money off already having money and connections earned generations before them. People like the Hiltons and Romneys come to mind. We also have big bankers who failed at their jobs, but the government considered them "too big to fail". They were bailed out by the taxpayers, and are still making millions in salaries. I could go on and on about the "hardworking" 1%.

.

Poor people are richer today than they were 30 years ago. So you're facts are incorrect.
Do you really think Paris Hilton does no work? Mitt Romney did not work? You have a lot to learn.

Until conservatives understand that there is a problem with the growing disparity in wealth, this country is going to continue heading down the wrong path. And this has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth or creating a socialist state.

Trickle down does not and has not worked. Economies grow when the bottom has purchasing power. The bigger the bottom the more purchasing power needed to grow the economy. Rich people do provide the means for that growth, but without everyone else being able to purchase goods and services, the economy will not grow. The rich do not create wealth; the ones buying the goods and services do.

This is so very basic it is hard to believe so many people do not understand this.

LOL this is how liberals speak, by throwing piddly pictures at us. Come on man, back that up with a link.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Here is Sowell, has a question about min wage

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lakhota]

When Your Boss Steals Your Wages: The Invisible Epidemic That's Sweeping America

As Bangladesh Death Toll Exceeds 300, Major U.S. Retailers Refuse To Implement Safety Standards

 

[The Rabbi]

1. Dugdale's point about Reagan's economic policies is correct. Nothing is "trickling down" to the poor. It is also a myth that our rich have become rich purely through ambition and hard work. While some have there is a certain segment of the 1% making money off already having money and connections earned generations before them. People like the Hiltons and Romneys come to mind. We also have big bankers who failed at their jobs, but the government considered them "too big to fail". They were bailed out by the taxpayers, and are still making millions in salaries. I could go on and on about the "hardworking" 1%.

.

Poor people are richer today than they were 30 years ago. So you're facts are incorrect.
Do you really think Paris Hilton does no work? Mitt Romney did not work? You have a lot to learn.

Until conservatives understand that there is a problem with the growing disparity in wealth, this country is going to continue heading down the wrong path. And this has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth or creating a socialist state.

Trickle down does not and has not worked. Economies grow when the bottom has purchasing power. The bigger the bottom the more purchasing power needed to grow the economy. Rich people do provide the means for that growth, but without everyone else being able to purchase goods and services, the economy will not grow. The rich do not create wealth; the ones buying the goods and services do.

This is so very basic it is hard to believe so many people do not understand this.

Imake a point and you bring supporting evidence. Thanks!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor.

ahoy Boss,

a mighty first salvo, matey.

i just thought i'd take a bite at the top 'o yer list - 'tis not a myth, thats reality. at least, thats what the statistical data seems to indicate.

The data show that when the population is divided in fifths, the middle three groups of the income distribution are fairly mobile. For this middle group, where one is born in the distribution does not determine where one will end up.

But for those born in the bottom or the top fifth, mobility is much more constricted, suggesting that birth circumstances play more of a role in lifetime outcomes.

Economist's View: U.S. Economic Mobility: The Dream and the Data

Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

It’s not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top.

Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth - NYTimes.com

in addition to all 'o that, the bulk 'o the gains made in our country, post recession, went to the tippy top 'o the earners, me friend...and amongst the rest 'o the nation?

well, they saw thar net worth keelhauled, since thar primary investment vehicle was thar homes.

so, i hafta say welcome to US Message Board me hearty, but i disagree with yer openin' premise.

- MeadHallPirate

Your'e looking at statistical anomalies. If you look at real people you discover things are different. People who entered the workforce 25 years ago are making more money than they made 25 years ago. That's what happens when you develop job skills. Of the people in the lowest 5th, how many were not part of the labor force at all 5 years ago? Probably most if not all.
No one has been able to explain why dispararities in wealth or income matter. They don't, in this society. Why would we expect everyone to make the same income when not everyone has the same intelligence, education, or drive to succeed?

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor.

ahoy Boss,

a mighty first salvo, matey.

i just thought i'd take a bite at the top 'o yer list - 'tis not a myth, thats reality. at least, thats what the statistical data seems to indicate.

Economist's View: U.S. Economic Mobility: The Dream and the Data

Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any other advanced industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that America is a land of opportunity.

It’s not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the top.

Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth - NYTimes.com

in addition to all 'o that, the bulk 'o the gains made in our country, post recession, went to the tippy top 'o the earners, me friend...and amongst the rest 'o the nation?

well, they saw thar net worth keelhauled, since thar primary investment vehicle was thar homes.

so, i hafta say welcome to US Message Board me hearty, but i disagree with yer openin' premise.

- MeadHallPirate

Your'e looking at statistical anomalies. If you look at real people you discover things are different. People who entered the workforce 25 years ago are making more money than they made 25 years ago. That's what happens when you develop job skills. Of the people in the lowest 5th, how many were not part of the labor force at all 5 years ago? Probably most if not all.
No one has been able to explain why dispararities in wealth or income matter. They don't, in this society. Why would we expect everyone to make the same income when not everyone has the same intelligence, education, or drive to succeed?

Well I'd like liberals to tell us what SHOULD be done...they never do that....they just criticize others....they never offer any plans.....so Should CEOs make the same as the burger flipper? And if not, what is the acceptable difference?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well I'd like liberals to tell us what SHOULD be done...they never do that....they just criticize others....they never offer any plans.....so Should CEOs make the same as the burger flipper? And if not, what is the acceptable difference?

They usually get around to "redistribute the wealth" and "1950 tax rates with 90% income tax." It doesn't matter how many times those chestnuts have been debunked, they still repeat it. Because libs are stoopid.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When Your Boss Steals Your Wages: The Invisible Epidemic That's Sweeping America

As Bangladesh Death Toll Exceeds 300, Major U.S. Retailers Refuse To Implement Safety Standards

Alternet and Think Progress do not count, Lakhota.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Well I'd like liberals to tell us what SHOULD be done...they never do that....they just criticize others....they never offer any plans.....so Should CEOs make the same as the burger flipper? And if not, what is the acceptable difference?

ahoy buckeye45_ 73,

i don't know what should be done, matey...but i don't think ye need to be a liberal to feel discomfort at the way the ship's ration's are bein' distributed.

i don't think anyone hath made the case that a CEO ought to be paid the same amount as burger flipper, either, at least i hadn't read that yet in the ship's log.

*pauses and muses a bit*

let me asks ye somethin', matey. do ye think wealth disparity that exists in our great land be a good phenomenon fer our nation?

i mean, we have a great deal 'o folks in our country who make so little, they cannot even afford to pay Federal income taxes - and 'tis gettin' increasingly impossible to fund things like our military and our care fer our old folks with whats comin' into our vessel's treasury.

isn't that an alarmin' thing?

- MeadHallPirate

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well I'd like liberals to tell us what SHOULD be done...they never do that....they just criticize others....they never offer any plans.....so Should CEOs make the same as the burger flipper? And if not, what is the acceptable difference?

ahoy buckeye45_ 73,

i don't know what should be done, matey...but i don't think ye need to be a liberal to feel discomfort at the way the ship's ration's are bein' distributed.

i don't think anyone hath made the case that a CEO ought to be paid the same amount as burger flipper, either, at least i hadn't read that yet in the ship's log.

*pauses and muses a bit*

let me asks ye somethin', matey. do ye think wealth disparity that exists in our great land be a good phenomenon fer our nation?

i mean, we have a great deal 'o folks in our country who make so little, they cannot even afford to pay Federal income taxes - and 'tis gettin' increasingly impossible to fund things like our military and our care fer our old folks with whats comin' into our vessel's treasury.

isn't that an alarmin' thing?

- MeadHallPirate

The problem is the frame of reference.......our poor are richer than most countries middle class... in terms or material things

Now, about the wealth disparity, I dont really care.....because people get paid what they are worth, if not they go somewhere else.....
I dont get paid as much as a CEO, not even close, but I dont resent them. How do you control it? You cant....that's the thing, you can try and get better jobs, but people have to get promoted to make money......very rarely are you going to do the same job and live like you used to....The main reason for that is the almost automatic inflation..
In the 60s a movie ticket was what .25? every year it goes up and up and up.....for many reasons, but one huge on is inflation....got to put the breaks on that and we dont by spending cash and printing more....inflation hurts the lower classes the most, but they're the ones that think it's a great thing......nope it...bad.....very bad...

 

[editec]

Well the uberwealth (who are NOT the 1%, but the .01%) are richer than ever.

How that working out for the American economy?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well the uberwealth (who are NOT the 1%, but the .01%) are richer than ever.

How that working out for the American economy?

Obama&CO tell us the economy is in full recovery. So I guess teh answer is fine.

No one has yet been able to say why this is a bad thing. Some people are great basketball players. Others suck. No one complains about athletic disparity. Why is the ability to earn money any different?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.

It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!

The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

Not bad for this forum that gets off on partisan polarization. Some good points, however we do have a 1% ruling class unlike anything ever seen before - a Corporate Oligarchy. And when it comes to that, all the partisan playbook jabs are darts against a monster.

 

[The Rabbi]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.

It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!

The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

Not bad for this forum that gets off on partisan polarization. Some good points, however we do have a 1% ruling class unlike anything ever seen before - a Corporate Oligarchy. And when it comes to that, all the partisan playbook jabs are darts against a monster.

Which corporations are running this country?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When Your Boss Steals Your Wages: The Invisible Epidemic That's Sweeping America

As Bangladesh Death Toll Exceeds 300, Major U.S. Retailers Refuse To Implement Safety Standards

The U.S. retailers had nothing to do with the construction of the building you moron.

The owner of the building has been arrested and is now facing charges.

 

[Boss]

1. Dugdale's point about Reagan's economic policies is correct. Nothing is "trickling down" to the poor. It is also a myth that our rich have become rich purely through ambition and hard work. While some have there is a certain segment of the 1% making money off already having money and connections earned generations before them. People like the Hiltons and Romneys come to mind. We also have big bankers who failed at their jobs, but the government considered them "too big to fail". They were bailed out by the taxpayers, and are still making millions in salaries. I could go on and on about the "hardworking" 1%.

.

Poor people are richer today than they were 30 years ago. So you're facts are incorrect.
Do you really think Paris Hilton does no work? Mitt Romney did not work? You have a lot to learn.

Until conservatives understand that there is a problem with the growing disparity in wealth, this country is going to continue heading down the wrong path. And this has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth or creating a socialist state.

Trickle down does not and has not worked. Economies grow when the bottom has purchasing power. The bigger the bottom the more purchasing power needed to grow the economy. Rich people do provide the means for that growth, but without everyone else being able to purchase goods and services, the economy will not grow. The rich do not create wealth; the ones buying the goods and services do.

This is so very basic it is hard to believe so many people do not understand this.

There is not a problem with growing wealth disparity, because growing wealth disparity is natural and normal in a free market, free enterprise system. It has absolutely everything to do with redistributing wealth and creating a socialist state, that's why this has been brainwashed into your head, that 'wealth disparity' is a bad thing that we need to fix.

If you are poor and you want to change the disparity of wealth between you and a rich person, there is only one system which offers you the free opportunity to do this. If you are motivated to decrease the disparity between yourself and the rich, you can do this through free market capitalism, with nothing more than drive, ambition, and determination. Literally MILLIONS have done precisely that.

Socialists have convinced you that 'wealth disparity' is a bad thing, that it's something alarming and out of control, and we need to do something to prevent it from happening, but the thing the socialists want to try, has been tried... repeatedly, and it always fails. Usually, it fails so horribly, that thousands of people die, either by sheer starvation and lack of medical care, or from outright execution and genocide by the Ruling Class. In any event, what is never achieved, is this Utopian idea of wealth equality.

The pirate dude misinterpreted my analogy about the marathon runner. I said that like the 'wealth disparity problem' we have a 'performance disparity problem' between a marathon runner and a couch potato. The pirate interpreted this to mean that someone busting ass at Walmart is not performing as well as a CEO. That's not what I said. Let's stick with the analogy... who is probably going to run to the end of the block faster, the marathon runner or the couch potato? Is it the marathon runner's fault that he is faster than the couch potato? Does hobbling the marathon runner make the couch potato faster? Who is going to have a more difficult time, running a marathon?

Yes, I get that it is hard for the bottom fifth to reach the status of the top fifth, but it's certainly not impossible. Socialist want to make this absolutely impossible. This doesn't help anyone, and it doesn't hurt those already at the top... it removes the opportunity for anyone trying to get to the top. And this is what we see manifesting itself today.

Without destroying free market capitalism and free enterprise, there will alway be a growing disparity in wealth, this is because motivated people who are free, will always outperform unmotivated people. A marathon runner will always outperform a couch potato. The way to make this growing disparity more linear and less of a 'problem' is by encouraging free market capitalism, not destroying it. Get the couch potato off the couch and in a routine of exercise and training. Motivate the couch potato to achieve, and do things to help make this easier, not harder. Punishing the successful is never going to motivate success.

 

[Boss]

Not bad for this forum that gets off on partisan polarization. Some good points, however we do have a 1% ruling class unlike anything ever seen before - a Corporate Oligarchy. And when it comes to that, all the partisan playbook jabs are darts against a monster.

More regurgitation of brainwash propaganda. We do have a 1%, but they are not "the ruling class" because we don't have a Caste System here. We have a Constitution, which affords every citizen the same equal rights to compete in a free market capitalist system. This is why Socialist arguments, which were constructed to do battle against Kings and Rulers, simply do not apply here. In European countries, where they have no Constitution or free market, and the people have no opportunity that isn't bestowed by the king or ruler, the Socialist arguments sound really good. So how do you make them apply here? Well, you have to create the perception that we really live in the same kind of situation, but we don't.

Free market capitalism ensures there can't be Corporate Oligarchy. You and I are FREE to go out there and create a corporation to compete with others. IF there is a corporation who is unfairly 'bilking' people and being 'greedy' we can create a corporation that doesn't, the consumer will respond, and we'll put the greedy bilkers out of business. If we get too big for our britches and become too greedy, another corporation will come along... it's what happens in the free market.

Now contrast this with the system you and the socialist dream of... the STATE controls all aspects of the free market, either directly through ownership, or through buren of excess regulation. Under that system, there is ZERO competition, and "the people" are left with no options. This is nothing BUT a breeding ground for greed and bilking. And the sick part is, NOW... you can't do anything about the greed and bilking, because you've destroyed THAT system!

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it! YOLO! So here I will present a sampling of liberal myths, and explain why they are, in fact, myths and not facts. Shall we begin?

1. We must do something about wealth disparity, the gap between the rich and poor, the 1% vs. the 99%.

It's not a myth that rich people get richer while poor people remain poor. The myth is, that we should (or could) do something to change the dynamics. We can't and shouldn't try. Rich people become richer because, generally speaking, rich people have better business sense, sharper intuition, more motivation, ambition, drive. It's kind of like saying, marathon runners win more races than couch potatoes, so we must do something to hinder the marathon runner.

Rich people mostly became rich because of their drive and ambition to do so, and poor people don't become rich, because they lack this same level of drive and ambition. Now, we can't ever "fix" this problem by making it MORE of a challenge to become rich. The best idea would be to try and foster a sense of ambition and drive in people who are poor. The easier it becomes to attain wealth, the more poor people will be inclined to achieve it.

No matter what happens, we will always live in a world where wealthy people gain wealth faster than poor people with nothing. Wealth disparity is a natural thing that happens, regardless of anything you can do. Liberals argue for wealth redistribution, but this won't work, because the drive and ambition element is unchanged. A noted economist once predicted, you could redistribute all the wealth in the world, equally distributing it to every person on the planet, and in 20 years, we'd be right back to where we started.

2. Republicans don't care about the poor, sick, or downtrodden.

This myth perpetuates itself because Liberals assume Republican objections to their ideas mean they have no compassion. Republicans, for the most part, simply have a different idea of how we "help" others. No one wants to see people suffer or die. However, in the mind of a Liberal, there is ONLY the Liberal idea, and if you are not on board with the Liberal Idea, you must hate people and want them to suffer. Fact of the matter is, we've been implementing liberal policies and programs for 60 years or more, and according to the studies, our poor and downtrodden aren't much better off. So, the liberal ideas aren't working, and intelligent rational people believe there might be a reason to try something different.

You have to almost wonder if it's not the Liberal who doesn't care about the poor, sick or downtrodden, they continue to want the same kind of policies and programs which have failed the past 60 years, and refuse to try something new. It's the same template over and over... We're going to have our liberal idea, if we have to crusade with our torches for 100 years, by god, we're going to have our liberal idea... then when the idea is implemented and doesn't work, it's because we haven't spent enough money on it. We have now spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 trillion, fighting the "war on poverty" and we have as many families at poverty level than any time in our history. We've committed to spend another $100 trillion, and any talk of reducing that amount is met with moaning and writhing in the streets by Liberals who cry that Republicans don't care.

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

In 1987, I attended a gay wedding in Alabama! Two of my dear sweet gay friends, decided they wanted to commemorate their love for one another, with a wedding ceremony. We gathered on a hillside in the country, with a Rastafarian minister, and they got hitched! The wedding was complete with rice and photos, and the couple dashed off on their honeymoon to Hawaii.

Now.... How can this be? Gays can't legally do this, can they? Sure they can! There is no law which prohibits a gay couple from having a wedding ceremony. In fact, there is no law which prohibits gays from getting a marriage licence, it just has to be with the opposite sex, like everyone else. That's because this is how "marriage" is defined, and it's not restricted to only heterosexuals. Nothing is being denied that isn't being denied to everyone.

4. Military-style Assault Weapons are a problem and need to be banned.

There is no such thing as a military style assault weapon. It's true! There are weapons which are "military style" and this refers to various aspects of the functionality, but the rapid-fire 'automatic' element is missing, we don't allow those type weapons to be sold to the public, they are for military use only. In a weapon available to the public, the term "military style" has more to do with the grips, the stock, the removable clip, etc. It's a much more efficient and ergonomic design, and has nothing really to do with the military or the kind of weapon they would use.

It's illegal to "assault" using a weapon in the US, and a gun is completely unable to "assault" on it's own. Therefore, the term "assault weapon" is a misnomer, it can never be legally used for this purpose in the general public.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

This is pure propaganda, perpetrated by pure Communist Socialists. The very nature of free market capitalism, all but destroys the element of greed. When capitalists are free to compete, the "greedy capitalist" is quickly put out of business by the "smart capitalist" and life goes on. Oh...this multinational or that is 'bilking' us... well, go out there and find some investment capital, and start a rival company! Nothing is stopping you! If you can do it cheaper or better, without a high-dollar CEO, or whatever... go do it! Give us consumers a deal that isn't 'bilking' us and I promise, we consumers will make you rich!

The real greed exists in a closed market system, like Russia or China. Where competition has been eliminated and the State controls all wealth and power. THAT is when you see greed rear it's ugly head, for REAL. You see, the sad truth is, the 1% will ALWAYS exist... nothing you can ever do about that. In a socialist system, the 1% is the Ruling Class, who now control not only all the wealth, but all the political power as well. Government figureheads and their cronies, soak up all the gains and spoils, and the general public is left with nothing. Not only are they left with nothing, they have also been stripped of opportunity to attain wealth at all.

I have several more myths to address, but I think 5 is plenty to start with.

Not bad for this forum that gets off on partisan polarization. Some good points, however we do have a 1% ruling class unlike anything ever seen before - a Corporate Oligarchy. And when it comes to that, all the partisan playbook jabs are darts against a monster.

Which corporations are running this country?

One of several thousand links.............

http://www.truth-out.org/progressiv...ns-dc-crony-capitalism-prevails-at-every-turn

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Your'e looking at statistical anomalies. If you look at real people you discover things are different. People who entered the workforce 25 years ago are making more money than they made 25 years ago. That's what happens when you develop job skills. Of the people in the lowest 5th, how many were not part of the labor force at all 5 years ago? Probably most if not all.
No one has been able to explain why dispararities in wealth or income matter. They don't, in this society. Why would we expect everyone to make the same income when not everyone has the same intelligence, education, or drive to succeed?

ahoy...*reconsiders*...Shalom, The Rabbi,

the actual net worth 'o middle class americans o'er the last 40 years doesn't seem like a statistical anomaly to me, matey. its just the numbers be sayin' after a half century or so 'o our current fiscal policies and the ramifications them policies hath had on our just and mighty nation.

i also don't understand what this sentence means, matey;

People who entered the workforce 25 years ago are making more money than they made 25 years ago.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate