Dispelling Liberal Myths

[Boss]

Truth-out.org is a Socialist propaganda outlet. Designed and implemented by Socialists and Marxists who fully intend to brainwash stupid people into believing we need to destroy free market capitalism. You continue to run to them as a source, but what they are telling you is a lie. It's based on false perceptions and absurdities that are easily debunked by any rational person willing to do so.

Yes... powerful corporations do influence political powers. Just like powerful lobbyists, powerful PACs, powerful unions... etc. If you don't want politicians who can be influenced by these powers, don't elect them! But the Constitution guarantees us the right of free assembly, and that is basically what you have in a corporation. Again, the "solution" is certainly not to destroy any ability to influence power, is it? Do you REALLY want to live in a society that has no power to influence policy? Are you on crack???

I am stunned sometimes at how little people actually know, who you'd think would know more. Recently, I had a long conversation with a Liberal Libertarian friend, who I didn't really want to 'argue' with, but he just kept on with this "corporate multinationals" crap and how much CEOs made...blah blah blah... Finally, I asked him..."What does a CEO actually DO?" ...Straight up, do you know? He kind of gave me a puzzled look, like he couldn't believe I had asked him this. Then he proceeded to tell me things that I didn't know, like the 'fact' that CEOs really don't DO very much, they talk on the phone, go to meetings and play golf. Then they fly around in private jets and spend lavishly. That's about it, according to my friend. The problem is, this doesn't comport with reality.

You see, in a free market capitalist system, if a capitalist is expending resources on frivolity, paying a 'figurehead' to 'do nothing' and just spend money, then out there somewhere, is another capitalist who realizes this, and creates a rival competitor who doesn't do those things, thus is more successful. If CEOs were not "worth" what they are paid, don't you think some capitalist would have capitalized? It's what they do! So what we have to assume, (and you fail to) is that capitalists see a value in having a well-paid CEO. If your opinion differs, our system allows you the freedom to make your idea work, if it's better, so find like-minded individuals who believe like you, that CEOs don't need to make more than a certain amount, and hire a CEO who feels his worth is in that range, and put the company with the high-paid CEO out of business! If you believe your idea is better, put it to the test!

 

[MeadHallPirate]

ahoy Buckeye45_73,

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

aye matey, i can understand that argument. poverty be relative, fer certain. i usually compare our nation's well bein' to other eras 'o our country's history, not India's middle class or say, the middle class in the Palestinian occupied territories.

but i see yer point.

Now, about the wealth disparity, I dont really care.....because people get paid what they are worth, if not they go somewhere else.....

do people get paid what they're worth, ye think? do ye not feel that yer worth more than yer bein' paid?

speakin' just from me own personal experience as a skipper, i don't think folks necessarily get paid what they be worth - employees be no different than any other commodity; they get paid what the market will bear...and in terms 'o employees, 'tis a buyer's market fer us business owners (at least in me own field).

imma not interested in divestin' meself 'o me monies, so i pay me crew what i think they're worth.

they may feel like they be worth more, but they've no leverage...'tis not 2006 any longer and hasn't been fer a while now, aye?

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[wjmacguffin]

For my first thread here, I figured I may as well jump in the deep end of the pool and go for it!

Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.

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

The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.

Your argument seems to center on the idea that poor people are dumb, lazy, etc. I'm sure that's true for some of the poor. But you are painting with a very broad brush. Do you have any proof or links to back up your social darwinistic assertion?

You're also focusing solely on the poor. Why is the middle class slipping into the poor class? Are all of them dumb and lazy too?

Again, the problem is not that there are rich and poor. The problem is that wealth is concentrating in the top instead of trickling down.

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

Many liberals believe this, but not me. I think conservatives believe strongly in the power of individual accountability, that the more one helps someone, the more you sap that person's ambition and strength.

Liberals believe in this myth, not because they hate people who aren't liberal, but because conservatives often fight against programs that provide help. Conservatives say this is hurtful in the long run, whereas liberals say it's the short run that matters most.

As for liberals supporting "failed" policies, you were correct in saying there will always be rich and poor. These policies aren't intended to end poverty forever and ever. Instead, they have two goals: 1) Relieve some of the problems of being poor, and 2) Try to break the cycle of poverty and help people enter the middle class. (That's not the same as ending poverty forever because it's trying to decrease the numbers in poverty, not end it completely.)

3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

Homosexuals are being denied the same legal rights as heterosexuals in regards to marriage. Couples of any orientation can connect under any label they want. But if you want the legal rights that come with marriages (such as filing taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, ownership of property, etc.), you must be heterosexual.

In other words, it's not about ceremonies--it's about equal treatment under the law, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

"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." So what you're saying is homosexuals can get married, but only to people they don't love. Wow, great idea.

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

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Most liberals believe that, while guns are a right, all rights have limits--especially when public safety is impacted. For example, you cannot exercise your right to free speech by screaming, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire; public safety trumps individual rights. Therefore, guns can be limited.

Which ones to limit? The ones that can most easily be used by criminals to cause catastrophic damage to the public. All guns kill--that's their design purpose--but assault weapons are designed to kill lots of people at one time. Therefore, liberals generally believe that assault weapons should be banned--the needs of public safety outweigh the individual right.

The definition of "assault weapon" is indeed problematic. While no gun can assault by itself, these weapons are designed to fire rapidly for assaulting an enemy position. (As opposed to, say, a sidearm or a sniper rifle.) Like the term "porn", it is an inaccurate term but the best available to describe a category.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

There are liberal nutjobs who love Karl Marx and dream of a Communist utopia--just like there are conservative nutjobs who love Hitler and dream of a Fascist utopia. Conservatism shouldn't be branded racist just because a few of them are racist, so liberals shouldn't be branded communists either.

What liberals decry is the emphasis on greed over morality. Most businesses are good, but there are many that have cut corners, ignored safety reports, pay people as little as possible, etc., all to put profit above everything else. Capitalism works, but some people take advantage of it to put profit ahead of morality. That's a "greedy Capitalist".

However, I disagree with your assertion that greedy capitalists are put out of business quickly by the marketplace. Just the opposite! The marketplace exists to make profit, not morally correct decisions. It's not bad, it's not good--it's just profit-orientated. That's usually a good thing, as profits lead to employment and all that. But it's not always a good thing, and those that make higher profits by being immoral are more likely to survive than businesses who play by the rules.

However, you are conflating socialism with communism. The two are separate entities. I completely agree that communism doesn't work. (Although you could make the argument that nations like Russia and China never really implemented communism, that they were just corrupt dictatorships with communist window dressing.) Socialism tries to regulate the marketplace to avoid the above problems with immoral greed by using the government, technically beholden to the people, to correct abuses.

 

[Erand7899]

Typically, one can only debunk a myth by providing facts to the contrary.

That would appear to assume some interest in either alternative myths or real facts. The nutball mind barely exists; nutballs are creatures operating by feel, not by calculated rational decisions.

Look how easy it was for scum like Greenspan and Levitt to make the sale that markets are rational after 500 years of evidence to the contrary. A gaggle of corrupt Zionist scum used pencils and slide rules to declare a "new economy" directly opposed to hundreds of years of experience and nutballs ate it up like it was cinnamon and sugar coated manna from heaven.

Here is the bottom line: partisans on both sides of todays US political divide operate on feelings. In today's political hierarchy, partisans are the equivalent of amoebas in the zoological hierarchy. The primary difference in my observation and experience is fake-liberals tend to have demonstrated more of an ability to sit on their asses for mind-numbing periods of time and fill in little rings with number two pencils, while nutballs understand more about NASCAR.

Neither group understands a fucking thing about economics or how systems more complex than a refrigerator door operate.

If you really understood just half of what you think you understand about economics, you might be capable of a reasonable analysis of free market principles. Capitalism is the natural economic system and predated government by thousands of years. No other system has ever been proven to out perform capitalism in providing for the needs and wants of any large population.

Government is a drag on any economic system. A necessary drag, but a drag none-the-less. The more that government takes out, the harder it is for the economic system to grow. That fact ought to be obvious to any observer. And, if that is true, the opposite is also true. Government taking out less, makes it easier for the economic system to grow.

That, in a nutshell, is what liberals refer to as "trickle down", or supply side economics. Tax cuts reduce the government take and leaves more to work in the economy. A growing economy is good for all, and that includes the poor and those in poverty. The old saw about a rising tide raising all boats.

 

[rdean]

This one struck me as the most hilarious:

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

And not a single suggestion on how to help the poor, sick, or the downtrodden. The entire piece was merely a rant on how the policies of Democrats have failed. And even that was strange. Seems to be saying, if Democrats fight poverty, why do we still have poverty? Well, we fought the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII and the Korean War and still, Republicans found time to create a war in Iraq out of nothing at all. A war we will be paying for, for decades to come. And, if they get back the presidency, I have no doubt there will be another one. Republicans see profit in war. Big profits. Huge profits.

 

[rdean]

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.

Republicans think "CEO's work harder". A lot of that "hard work" is buying up Republican politicians to change the laws so they don't have to "work harder". Imagine if Mitt Romney had become president with his budget plan. The only comfort the GOP base would have is "well, at least that Kenyan isn't in the WHITE House anymore".

 

[The Rabbi]

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.............

A DC Insider Explains How the Wall Street Lobby Owns DC: Crony Capitalism Prevails at Every Turn

Truthout is not a source. A washed up staffer for Joe Biden is not a source. Do companies have input into policy decisions? Yes. Is that a shock? Companies are composed of thousands of workers, and even more stockholders and other interested parties. Shouldn't they have a say?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Do people have a higher standard of living today than they did 40 years ago? Of course they do.

Look at someone who entered the work force 15 years ago. What are the odds that he is making more money today, propelling him into the ranks of the middle class? Pretty close to certain.

 

[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!

Welcome! Most people here are clueless jerks, but I hope you'll keep posting regardless.

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

The liberal idea isn't that rich people are wrong for being rich (despite what some conservatives would say). It's not that there's a gap--you're correct, there will always be one. Rather, it's that the middle and lower classes are getting more poor while the rich are getting richer. A rising tide should float all boats, as the saying goes, but it's not.
.

Prior to OBama middle class people and lower class people were making income gains. Of course under Obama everyone is a loser. Household income and net worth are back down to where they were in 90s.
But Margaret Thatcher was right: The left is OK with the poor being poorer as long as the rich are less rich.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You contention that purchasing power is the answer to economic growth is not basic, it is dead wrong. If that were the case, all government would have to do is send everyone in the lower income quintile a big check, and we would once more be in economic heaven. That boom would last no longer than it took for that cash to be spent.

Of course, that would definitely help the economies of China, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc., where those consumer goods are manufactured. It wouldn't do much for our economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

His entire premise is completely wrong. Growth comes from investment in new production. That investment is the result of stored up money that was previously earned, which by definition must come from people with money to invest.

 

[Erand7899]

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

Wealth disparity means absolutely nothing to anyone who has not got his eye on helping himself to the wealth of others. Substitute wealth for potatoes, and see how ignorant the wealth disparity argument is.

If 1% of the people have warehouses full of potatoes, the other 99% are only harmed if the annual potato harvest fails, and insufficient potatoes exist to fill the desires of those people. Likewise, the amount of wealth held by the 1%, is only an issue if the other 99% cannot get all the wealth they earn. Wealth is not a finite amount. New wealth is created every day, and that wealth is distributed among the people who created it.

Our economic problems are caused by the fact that we have too few creating wealth and too many who want to live off of that wealth, whether, or not, they helped create it. To fix that problem, we need to make it easier for people to create wealth, and quit making it easier to live off of wealth created by others.

 

[bripat9643]

Which corporations are running this country?

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

A DC Insider Explains How the Wall Street Lobby Owns DC: Crony Capitalism Prevails at Every Turn

Truthout is not a source. A washed up staffer for Joe Biden is not a source. Do companies have input into policy decisions? Yes. Is that a shock? Companies are composed of thousands of workers, and even more stockholders and other interested parties. Shouldn't they have a say?

Liberals think that only pinko liberal arts professors and union bosses should have any input into policy decisions.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

This one struck me as the most hilarious:

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

And not a single suggestion on how to help the poor, sick, or the downtrodden. The entire piece was merely a rant on how the policies of Democrats have failed. And even that was strange. Seems to be saying, if Democrats fight poverty, why do we still have poverty? Well, we fought the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII and the Korean War and still, Republicans found time to create a war in Iraq out of nothing at all. A war we will be paying for, for decades to come. And, if they get back the presidency, I have no doubt there will be another one. Republicans see profit in war. Big profits. Huge profits.

ahoy Rdean,

well met, matey.

i can sorta see whar yer comin' from, matey, but i don't think it be fair to blame the participation 'o our nation in all them wars soley on the GOP.

in today's reality 'o 2013, i don't really see this POTUS as much 'o a dove, either.

certainly California be a robust supporter 'o Federal spendin' on the military - the Federal government sends them folks on the west coast a king's ransom in taxpayer monies every year.

when it comes to military spendin', i feel our congressmen be pretty agnostic on the matter. party ideology doesn't come into play, they all want thar monies and would like to have more.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I love this theory...Because wealth distribution is bad unless its the rich taking from the poor then it's fine and dandy because as the OP noted the rich have better "drive and ambition" not "connections and cronyism" which COULD be the case but the OP has determined that the rich became rich from SHEER WILL.

And since Will, drive and ambition cannot be measured always be leery of someone who likes to sight immeasurable things as proof of anything.

 

[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.

I love this theory...Because wealth distribution is bad unless its the rich taking from the poor then it's fine and dandy because as the OP noted the rich have better "drive and ambition" not "connections and cronyism" which COULD be the case but the OP has determined that the rich became rich from SHEER WILL.

And since Will, drive and ambition cannot be measured always be leery of someone who likes to sight immeasurable things as proof of anything.

There are some people who can't look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without concluding the fat fellow took something from the thin one. -RR.

Hard to argue with people so illiterate they write things like "sight".

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I love this theory...Because wealth distribution is bad unless its the rich taking from the poor then it's fine and dandy because as the OP noted the rich have better "drive and ambition" not "connections and cronyism" which COULD be the case but the OP has determined that the rich became rich from SHEER WILL.

And since Will, drive and ambition cannot be measured always be leery of someone who likes to sight immeasurable things as proof of anything.

There are some people who can't look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without concluding the fat fellow took something from the thin one. -RR.

Hard to argue with people so illiterate they write things like "sight".

great so, you're leaving then? Or got more one liners?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Wealth disparity means absolutely nothing to anyone who has not got his eye on helping himself to the wealth of others. Substitute wealth for potatoes, and see how ignorant the wealth disparity argument is.

If 1% of the people have warehouses full of potatoes, the other 99% are only harmed if the annual potato harvest fails, and insufficient potatoes exist to fill the desires of those people. Likewise, the amount of wealth held by the 1%, is only an issue if the other 99% cannot get all the wealth they earn. Wealth is not a finite amount. New wealth is created every day, and that wealth is distributed among the people who created it.

Our economic problems are caused by the fact that we have too few creating wealth and too many who want to live off of that wealth, whether, or not, they helped create it. To fix that problem, we need to make it easier for people to create wealth, and quit making it easier to live off of wealth created by others.

So we need to create more will? Extra gumption? Increase get up and go?


All great ideas

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

FALSE PROPOSITIONS ACCORDING TO BOSS

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

The chart below clearly proves 35 years of supply-side policy is working like gangbusters.
If bankrupting the United States was Reagan's objective, he sure got the ball rolling up the right hill.

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

Not sure. Not an issue.


3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

Maybe. Maybe not.

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

No one is taking my guns. Or forcing me to register them.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

See chart in number one. Most of the money spent by elected cocksuckers supporting supply-side policy was borrowed, then paid out as corporate welfare ending up as dividends paid into public sector pension funds and into bank accounts of corporate executives. Every fact on file proves the latter dividends stayed at the top. Trickle-down never worked as economic policy and it never will.

Economic opportunities are driven by demand as surely as real estate opportunities are driven by location.

Conclusion: Greedy capitalists did not cause today's problems. Incompetent government economic policy dating back to the early 1980s caused today's problems. Today's problems shall continue until competent policies restore purchasing power to Main Street

And right on cue here' a brain dead liberal with more stupidity, trying to show that deficits are caused by people making more money.

Curiosity killed the cat; still, if you'll pardon the possible overstatement, one feels a sort of morbid curiosity about the nutball mind. One cannot help but wonder what it must feel like behind eyes witnessing so much with so little understanding.

One supposes it must be something like monkeys looking at a page of Shakespeare, and then one moves on.

 

[The Rabbi]

FALSE PROPOSITIONS ACCORDING TO BOSS

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

The chart below clearly proves 35 years of supply-side policy is working like gangbusters.
If bankrupting the United States was Reagan's objective, he sure got the ball rolling up the right hill.




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

Not sure. Not an issue.


3. Gays are being denied the right to marry!

Maybe. Maybe not.

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

No one is taking my guns. Or forcing me to register them.

5. Something HAS to be done about greedy capitalists!

See chart in number one. Most of the money spent by elected cocksuckers supporting supply-side policy was borrowed, then paid out as corporate welfare ending up as dividends paid into public sector pension funds and into bank accounts of corporate executives. Every fact on file proves the latter dividends stayed at the top. Trickle-down never worked as economic policy and it never will.

Economic opportunities are driven by demand as surely as real estate opportunities are driven by location.

Conclusion: Greedy capitalists did not cause today's problems. Incompetent government economic policy dating back to the early 1980s caused today's problems. Today's problems shall continue until competent policies restore purchasing power to Main Street

And right on cue here' a brain dead liberal with more stupidity, trying to show that deficits are caused by people making more money.

Curiosity killed the cat; still, if you'll pardon the possible overstatement, one feels a sort of morbid curiosity about the nutball mind. One cannot help but wonder what it must feel like behind eyes witnessing so much with so little understanding.

One supposes it must be something like monkeys looking at a page of Shakespeare, and then one moves on.

You would know, snavely. You're the one positing that increasing income results in higher gov't deficits.