Has the republican perception of the income inequality crisis changed at all?

[Stephanie]

There is no income inequality crisis. That is totally made up by the left.

Either you are in denial because you are too immature to admit you were wrong about this when this issue first came to light or you are just that stupid.

Which is it?

This isn't a left issue. This is very real.

you're the immature one. You can't talk to others without calling them names, insinuating they are stupid, etc
grow up, millions of people don't buy into your liberal socialist visions or class warfare

Are you really going to tell me you behave maturely and with civility on this forum?

Are you really going to play this game?
you don't like it thrown back in your uppity face, do you?

 

[Rikurzhen]

There is no income inequality crisis. That is totally made up by the left.

If you're making an income of $50,000 today, if the income inequality metric was at the level seen in 1956, then your income today would be $57,750. In other words. when you work and create wealth out of thin air, you and your employer divide this wealth. You capture about 58% of the wealth today whereas back in 1956 you would have captured about 67% of the wealth. Your employer is taking an additional 15% of your wealth that he didn't take in earlier days.

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We should be focused on creating new wealth not stealing wealth from those who have it to dole out to the have nots.

Exactly.

Did Apple's boom make society poorer?

Did Microsoft's innovations make society poorer?

Did the oil boom make society poorer?

Yeah, sure, these things made some people über-wealthy (and some have abused that wealth), but they generally increased the wealth of society.

Will anyone argue that society as a whole is less wealthy than 100 years ago? Relative wealth within society may be different, but we are as a whole much better off than we were. Who except the covetous among us care if someone else has more?

Increasing wealth on an absolute scale is about creating it, not redistributing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Plus if you did confiscate

Republican don't care about income inequality. The GOP God Ronald Reagan is happy now with the success of his economic policies. Only he had it backwards. It is the trickle up policy that make him smile in his casket.

so how do you geniuses in the Dem. party plan to help this inequality?
how do you change it from happening

Punish those evil successful people and socialize oil, gas, and coal industries, and any other private sector cash cow they can get their hands on.

Read # 152

Post # 152 needs to focus on the root cause, namely idiot liberals and their tax and spend and regulation jobs killing idiocy. Followed closely by their education idiocy, their fomenting hate and division idiocy, and their irrational hatred of success and corporations idiocy.

Can you honestly say that when the GOP turns its back on Democratic requests to stop the many unwarranted tax breaks for the wealthy, oil companies, and corporations that take their companies off shore? The hypocrisy of the GOP is due to their dependence on the checks from special interest lobbyist who each have their hands in the pockets on the repub representatives.

Democratic requests to stop the many unwarranted tax breaks for the wealthy, oil companies, and corporations that take their companies off shore?


Any specific "tax breaks for the wealthy" we should eliminate?

What tax breaks for oil companies should end?

What tax break do you think corporations should not receive for leaving our shores?

Be specific, because generalized, no info feelings get annoying.

Republicans Block Repeal of Oil-Company Tax Breaks Obama Sought - Bloomberg

And the rich get richer and the GOP is happy.

Thanks for the link, but it had zero details about the supposed tax breaks oil companies unfairly receive.

Try again?

 

[Iceweasel]

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

The libs just want to use this as an excuse to "redistribute wealth" from productive people t Democrat voters. The truth is if they cared about it they would want pro business policies that would create more and better job opportunities.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

I agree with what you've written but only in the general sense. In the pedantic sense, it's not so much the economy but the labor market that is the key, though of course they are tightly linked. You can have a booming economy and still not face labor shortages and so nothing much changes other than people are now working instead of being unemployed, but labor still isn't capturing more of the wealth it creates and so that income inequality issue is still hanging there.

We had closed the immigration pipeline for over 40 years between the 1920s and the 1960s, women didn't have a large presence in the workforce and so, after the depression and war, business had to pay dearly for the labor it wanted and they sacrificed returns on their capital to do so. Look at the graph I attached in post#182. That was the marketplace doing that, no government intervention needed. That's how you lower income inequality and give people raises.

The kind of environment we had in the late 90s, just as you mentioned. That would fix the problem.

 

[bripat9643]

We should be focused on creating new wealth not stealing wealth from those who have it to dole out to the have nots.

Exactly.

Did Apple's boom make society poorer?

Did Microsoft's innovations make society poorer?

Did the oil boom make society poorer?

Yeah, sure, these things made some people über-wealthy (and some have abused that wealth), but they generally increased the wealth of society.

Will anyone argue that society as a whole is less wealthy than 100 years ago? Relative wealth within society may be different, but we are as a whole much better off than we were. Who except the covetous among us care if someone else has more?

Increasing wealth on an absolute scale is about creating it, not redistributing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Plus if you did confiscate

Republican don't care about income inequality. The GOP God Ronald Reagan is happy now with the success of his economic policies. Only he had it backwards. It is the trickle up policy that make him smile in his casket.

so how do you geniuses in the Dem. party plan to help this inequality?
how do you change it from happening

Punish those evil successful people and socialize oil, gas, and coal industries, and any other private sector cash cow they can get their hands on.

Read # 152

Post # 152 needs to focus on the root cause, namely idiot liberals and their tax and spend and regulation jobs killing idiocy. Followed closely by their education idiocy, their fomenting hate and division idiocy, and their irrational hatred of success and corporations idiocy.

Can you honestly say that when the GOP turns its back on Democratic requests to stop the many unwarranted tax breaks for the wealthy, oil companies, and corporations that take their companies off shore? The hypocrisy of the GOP is due to their dependence on the checks from special interest lobbyist who each have their hands in the pockets on the repub representatives.

What are the tax breaks for taking your company offshore? I keep seeing libs post this nonsense, but I have yet to see any specifics. Can you post some details about actual tax regulations?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

I agree with what you've written but only in the general sense. In the pedantic sense, it's not so much the economy but the labor market that is the key, though of course they are tightly linked. You can have a booming economy and still not face labor shortages and so nothing much changes other than people are now working instead of being unemployed, but labor still isn't capturing more of the wealth it creates and so that income inequality issue is still hanging there.

We had closed the immigration pipeline for over 40 years between the 1920s and the 1960s, women didn't have a large presence in the workforce and so, after the depression and war, business had to pay dearly for the labor it wanted and they sacrificed returns on their capital to do so. Look at the graph I attached in post#182. That was the marketplace doing that, no government intervention needed. That's how you lower income inequality and give people raises.

The kind of environment we had in the late 90s, just as you mentioned. That would fix the problem.

If you think illegal immigration is keeping down wages across the board you're nuts.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

I agree with what you've written but only in the general sense. In the pedantic sense, it's not so much the economy but the labor market that is the key, though of course they are tightly linked. You can have a booming economy and still not face labor shortages and so nothing much changes other than people are now working instead of being unemployed, but labor still isn't capturing more of the wealth it creates and so that income inequality issue is still hanging there.

We had closed the immigration pipeline for over 40 years between the 1920s and the 1960s, women didn't have a large presence in the workforce and so, after the depression and war, business had to pay dearly for the labor it wanted and they sacrificed returns on their capital to do so. Look at the graph I attached in post#182. That was the marketplace doing that, no government intervention needed. That's how you lower income inequality and give people raises.

The kind of environment we had in the late 90s, just as you mentioned. That would fix the problem.

If you think illegal immigration is keeping down wages across the board you're nuts.

If you think the sun lights the earth you're nuts.

Hey, this is fun.

 

[g5000]

I know you want to think everything is a crisis that should justify government intervention, but it simply isn't true.

If government intervention was not the leading cause of income disparity, you would have a valid point.

Unfortunately, it simply is true that government intervention is the primary cause. Therefore, it requires government action to undo the harm.

 

[g5000]

If you think illegal immigration is keeping down wages across the board you're nuts.

If you think the sun lights the earth you're nuts.

Hey, this is fun.

We had full employment until 2008. Then something happened. Maybe you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

Hint: It had nothing to do with immigrants.

 

[g5000]

When public and private debt exceeds 270% of GDP, economic growth becomes sluggish, and the ability to recover from a downturn is greatly hampered.

We crossed that red line in 2000.

 

[g5000]

The massive printing of money and ZIRP are attenuating the economy. The government is aiding and abetting the deleveraging of the criminal financial sector at the expense of the rest of the country and the world.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I know you want to think everything is a crisis that should justify government intervention, but it simply isn't true.

If government intervention was not the leading cause of income disparity, you would have a valid point.

Unfortunately, it simply is true that government intervention is the primary cause. Therefore, it requires government action to undo the harm.

But the traitor class in America is actively working to prevent the government from deporting 20 million illegal infiltrators. The government can't fix the problem of income inequality so long as they're hands are tied.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If you think illegal immigration is keeping down wages across the board you're nuts.

If you think the sun lights the earth you're nuts.

Hey, this is fun.

We had full employment until 2008. Then something happened. Maybe you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

Hint: It had nothing to do with immigrants.

Full employment. You're daft.

The problem is income inequality.

 

[Iceweasel]

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

I agree with what you've written but only in the general sense. In the pedantic sense, it's not so much the economy but the labor market that is the key, though of course they are tightly linked. You can have a booming economy and still not face labor shortages and so nothing much changes other than people are now working instead of being unemployed, but labor still isn't capturing more of the wealth it creates and so that income inequality issue is still hanging there.

That doesn't make sense. The economy doesn't matter but the labor market does? People working instead of unemployed is a good thing for the economy. They are earning income instead of none or being subsidized by their neighbor. Labor does capture more wealth since, like I said, you have to compete to employ them. It isn't a theory.

We had closed the immigration pipeline for over 40 years between the 1920s and the 1960s, women didn't have a large presence in the workforce and so, after the depression and war, business had to pay dearly for the labor it wanted and they sacrificed returns on their capital to do so. Look at the graph I attached in post#182. That was the marketplace doing that, no government intervention needed. That's how you lower income inequality and give people raises.

The kind of environment we had in the late 90s, just as you mentioned. That would fix the problem.

In the 90s we had Republicans holding Clinton's feet to the fire so you are right.

 

[Rikurzhen]

What needs to be said over and over and over again, to the left, is that the worse the economy is the worse the pay will be for many. A more vibrant economy means they have to pay you more. And it wasn't that long ago that companies were throwing in goodies to get you to work for them. Artificially jacking up wages won't work because higher operating costs aren't how you boost business.

I agree with what you've written but only in the general sense. In the pedantic sense, it's not so much the economy but the labor market that is the key, though of course they are tightly linked. You can have a booming economy and still not face labor shortages and so nothing much changes other than people are now working instead of being unemployed, but labor still isn't capturing more of the wealth it creates and so that income inequality issue is still hanging there.

That doesn't make sense. The economy doesn't matter but the labor market does? People working instead of unemployed is a good thing for the economy. They are earning income instead of none or being subsidized by their neighbor. Labor does capture more wealth since, like I said, you have to compete to employ them. It isn't a theory.

We had closed the immigration pipeline for over 40 years between the 1920s and the 1960s, women didn't have a large presence in the workforce and so, after the depression and war, business had to pay dearly for the labor it wanted and they sacrificed returns on their capital to do so. Look at the graph I attached in post#182. That was the marketplace doing that, no government intervention needed. That's how you lower income inequality and give people raises.

The kind of environment we had in the late 90s, just as you mentioned. That would fix the problem.

In the 90s we had Republicans holding Clinton's feet to the fire so you are right.

The booming economy had nothing to do with Clinton or the Republican Congress. Policy levers don't have that kind of effect.

The problems with employment and income inequality can't be fixed with policies, the fix needs to happen in the market, at a very fundamental level.

 

[Iceweasel]

The booming economy had nothing to do with Clinton or the Republican Congress. Policy levers don't have that kind of effect.

The problems with employment and income inequality can't be fixed with policies, the fix needs to happen in the market, at a very fundamental level.

Like I said, a better economy means better wages. I don't agree that policies don't effect economies and I doubt many would either. Clinton's term did enjoy the dotcom bubble where people were getting filthy rich off of hot air. Policies allowed it to happen. The housing crash had the opposite effect, policies allowed it to happen.

 

[PredFan]

There is no income inequality crisis. That is totally made up by the left.

Either you are in denial because you are too immature to admit you were wrong about this when this issue first came to light or you are just that stupid.

Which is it?

This isn't a left issue. This is very real.

I didn't say that there wasn't income inequality, it said it wasn't a crisis. That was invented by the left.

 

[PredFan]

There is no income inequality crisis. That is totally made up by the left.

If you're making an income of $50,000 today, if the income inequality metric was at the level seen in 1956, then your income today would be $57,750. In other words. when you work and create wealth out of thin air, you and your employer divide this wealth. You capture about 58% of the wealth today whereas back in 1956 you would have captured about 67% of the wealth. Your employer is taking an additional 15% of your wealth that he didn't take in earlier days.

Rising income inequality is a fact. Good luck arguing that it isn't. The issue is whether it is a crisis and here you're correct, it's a manufactured crisis, so far at least.

Read my post more carefully. I didn't say it wasn't a fact, I said that it isn't a crisis.