Income equality bull shit.

[Quantum Windbag]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

Considering the number of unemployed and underemployed far exceeds that of the Conservative, I would suggest they pick another meme.

How about "Jobs for US Citizens"?
Nah! That would infringe on FREEDOM!

Considering that Obama has been pivoting to jobs and the economy for 5 years, maybe we aren't the ones who need another meme.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

We DO have equality of opportunity? Not so sure.

To say something like that would be to assume that crony capitalism no longer exists, that the market place is driven by pure competition, and that individuals are hired always on merit. Not sure if that's the case. It's a buddy/buddy world out there. The "best family" will always beat out the "best man".

I think you're oversimplifying things.

I do agree with you in that Obama's mention of the argument is purely politically motivated, and quite insincere.

The solution to government created problems is not more government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Let me explain something to you, when you say "When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?" you aren't actually saying anything.

 

[PredFan]

I'm also upper middle class after coming from a middle of the road middle class military family.

Many of my military life classmates in high school didn't do well in school and took jobs right out of high school for "union wages" back in the 80s. I went to college and then the military for 20 years and now working in the civilian sector with my 3 college degrees making far more money than many of my high school classmates with the same economic backgrounds growing up.

Obama will claim they got screwed because many of them are black....I know they didn't study like me in high school when we played sports together and I know they took the money early in life instead of preparing for a better income/future through more hard work and college....

I am not in the 1% but I'm in the upper middle class. Between my wife and I we are close to the $250k range that the left wants to pay for the parasites who vote for them. I started out with absolutely nothing. I grew up in the lower income bracket, and I barely graduated high school. Then I decided if I was going to have any kind if life I had better get my shit together. Since I had no money, I joined the navy to get money for college. When I got out I didn't waste time, I studied and studied hard. I took advantage of the opportunities that came my way and while I'm not the Super Rich, I have all the money I need.

I had other opportunities and had I taken them I could have doubled my income. I chose not to and because I'm a rational thinking adult, I don't envy those who took the opportunity and did the extra work.

If you not not have wealth, look in the mirror for the cause of your problems.

There are a whole lot of factors that have contributed to the so called income equality gap. That does not mean that there are no opportunities. The whole thing is simply an election year plot by the left to keep their sheep in line. From the looks if the posts from the lefty sheep here, it is working.

 

[1776]

Obama's speech this week......

"Uh, we need to ensure the poor in this country get a FAIR SHAKE in life so I propose more goobermint programs (taking your money) to educate and train these people for tomorrow's jobs. It is good economic policy to train the poor for high tech jobs of tomorrow. Also, they should get a FAIR WAGE (taking your money). It your duty and my duty to make sure people living in trailer parks and the ghetto get a lift up in life (taking your money.) Green jobs will ensure this happens so I propose another stimulus package (to my rich friends) to help create more wind and solar energy to counter global warming uh, uh, uh I mean cliiiiiiimate change. These green jobs (after taking your money) will save the planet while creating more jobs for the poor in this country (while lining my rich friend's pockets)."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how many American voters do you think you can piss off and still cheat enough to win?

Are you trying to force me to create an exception to my rule about the ignore function?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What happens when he steps off?

You suddenly discover that he was never actually holding the plank in place at all? If you want to make a point you should at least understand basic physics, which would toss that guy into the air even with the wheelbarrow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Massive inequality of outcome - the path to the end of capitalism and Democracy
modest inequality of outcome - growing prosperous capitalist system
Equality of outcome - never gonna happen

I find it amusing to watch people complain about this issue while displaying such woeful ignorance of what the problem is and what is being complained about.

So, the "problem" as you see it is that people like Oprah and Beyonce have tons of money and you have very little. Have you asked them to send some to you?

No, the problem is that when wealth is controlled by a few, we get an Oligarchy. The masses then start reaching for the pitchforks and torches and storm the Bastille. As I have stated before, it is amusing when you guys call Obama a socialist when he is nothing of the sort. He is a corporatist, just like every president. If Obama's a socialist, then he is the worst socialist that ever walked the earth.

The only way for that to happen is if the wealthy have political power. That doesn't happen in a Constitutional Republic because the checks and balances built into the government prevent it. It only occurs when government starts working to regulate equality of results at the expense of innovation and progress.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand your argument and agree with most of it, however I think you're failing to understand mine.

My point is that crony capitalism is on the rise (vs on the fall), and that politicians are becoming less and less honorable/ethical, and that this is seriously beginning to threaten a poor American's ability to ascend and succeed if they have the skill and talent to do so.

Maybe it's always been that way - I don't know - however I've read at least a few books that have mentioned the fact that a Congressperson on a defense committee today wouldn't think twice about attending a fundraiser and rub shoulders with powerful defense lobbyists whereas 50 years ago that type of thing would be heavily frowned upon as unethical.

My point is that we're headed in the wrong direction, and that any resemblances of a "free market" are quickly fading with each passing year.

I ful

I think we are pretty much in agreement. corporate and special interest bribery of politicians is a problem. Liberal thinking is another problem.

As to the defence industry, that industry employees millions of americans in good paying blue and white collar jobs, those companies and their employees pay billions in federal taxes.

the industry is not the problem, the problem is the DC mindset that the USA has to police the world and force our value system on other countries.

the best warship or plane or tank is one that is never used but the enemy knows that it could be if necessary.

I favor term limits and a ban of all types of lobbying.

Bolded should be titled: Why Citizens United is a bad idea

Becausze allowing poor people to do the same thing rich people do is always bad, right?

Did you know that the David Koch was perfectly free to spend as much of his money as he wanted in any way he wanted even before Citizen's United? That the only thing thta changed after it is that poor people are now free to get together with their friends, pool their money, and do the exact same thing? Why does giving more power to poor people scare you?

 

[Mustang]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

Unless you're a person who has a group of lobbyists in your corner and several politicians in your pocket, I would say that statement is utter bullshit.

Yeah well just like every other post you make you are dead wrong.

Anyone who makes an absolutist statement is a fool. It's no more true to say that the outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you than it is to say that it's completely out of your control.

There's a reason why corporations hire lobbyists. It's because they KNOW that merit alone is not enough. They both need and want an advantage, and they pay for it. The politicians have their hands out, and they accept campaign contributions with the clear understanding that something like favorable legislation or preferential tax policy is expected in return.

Tom DeLay probably soiled that whole process more than anyone before him with the exception of politicians who got caught in sting operations clearly engaging in quid pro quo arrangements of giving specific favors for agreed upon payment arrangements for agreed upon amounts of money that often didn't even make it into the campaign coffers

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand we have a small percentage of our population that controls a major portion of our wealth and income

I have no desire to try to take away that wealth, but as a taxpayer, I question why we should continue policies that only serve to add to that wealth

You understand something that is not true? No wonder you are on the wrong side.

Do yourself a favor sometime, take a hard look at the actual numbers, and then look at the people who make up that top quintile that controls over half the wealth in this country. You might be surprised to learn that quite a few of the people you consider middle class actually control all that wealth.

 

[PredFan]

Unless you're a person who has a group of lobbyists in your corner and several politicians in your pocket, I would say that statement is utter bullshit.

Yeah well just like every other post you make you are dead wrong.

Anyone who makes an absolutist statement is a fool. It's no more true to say that the outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you than it is to say that it's completely out of your control.

There's a reason why corporations hire lobbyists. It's because they KNOW that merit alone is not enough. They both need and want an advantage, and they pay for it. The politicians have their hands out, and they accept campaign contributions with the clear understanding that something like favorable legislation or preferential tax policy is expected in return.

Tom DeLay probably soiled that whole process more than anyone before him with the exception of politicians who got caught in sting operations clearly engaging in quid pro quo arrangements of giving specific favors for agreed upon payment arrangements for agreed upon amounts of money that often didn't even make it into the campaign coffers

Not only is much of your argument bull shit, it is irrelevant as well. Even if I accepted what you are saying, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that opportunity is there and that it is entirely up to you whether you take it or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand we have a small percentage of our population that controls a major portion of our wealth and income

I have no desire to try to take away that wealth, but as a taxpayer, I question why we should continue policies that only serve to add to that wealth

which policies are those and which party put them in place?

Glad you asked....

Lets start with why Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than labor is

If one man works all year digging ditches for $25,000 and another makes $25,000 by clicking a mouse on a computer.....why does the Ditch Digger pay more in taxes?

Mostly because it screws over the middle class homeowner who sells a house to tax him like he worked simply because real estate is artificially limited by environmental policies and zoning laws.

But, please, feel free to blame rich people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Read this and then tell me that the Air Traffic Controllers were not at fault.

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.
On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

In addition to illegally going out on strike, the ATC was counting on the Canadian controllers to follow them on strike and they didn't want to lose their jobs and stayed at work. There are penalties for violating Federal law and Reagan took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, and he did just that.

How convenient to ignore 80% of my posting.
Reagan showed BALLS with the ATCs!
He could have humbled the other unions also into accepting less overbearing salaries and benefits and kept the jobs in the US.
Reagan was as big a shill for Wall Street as one could get.

Tell me, precisely, citing court cases, laws, and/or constitutional clauses, what would have given Reagan the right, or even the manufactured authority, to nationalize multiple industries, violate private contracts, and ignore everything this country was founded on, just to prevent something that only happened inside your head?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Closed Caption is a fine example if the sheeple who will buy into this rehashing of the old scam from 2008. He won't even care to notice that the gap has widened under his hero Obama.

Pred is a fine example of someone who makes assumptions and ends up looking like an asshole.

What scam? You dont even know

I noticed the gap widened. Have you? Obama the liberal socialist as you call him has made people MORE money and you still think hes some sort of ultra liberal.

Now thats what you call ignoring the evidence for the talking points. Pred believes that a socialist makes the rich more money isnt that right Pred. Tell everyone how this liberal is making the rich money and how Obama hates the rich you dummy

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Perhaps that is why you sound like an idiot.

I think he is just a deluded idiot myself.

 

[Mustang]

Yeah well just like every other post you make you are dead wrong.

Anyone who makes an absolutist statement is a fool. It's no more true to say that the outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you than it is to say that it's completely out of your control.

There's a reason why corporations hire lobbyists. It's because they KNOW that merit alone is not enough. They both need and want an advantage, and they pay for it. The politicians have their hands out, and they accept campaign contributions with the clear understanding that something like favorable legislation or preferential tax policy is expected in return.

Tom DeLay probably soiled that whole process more than anyone before him with the exception of politicians who got caught in sting operations clearly engaging in quid pro quo arrangements of giving specific favors for agreed upon payment arrangements for agreed upon amounts of money that often didn't even make it into the campaign coffers

Not only is much of your argument bull shit, it is irrelevant as well. Even if I accepted what you are saying, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that opportunity is there and that it is entirely up to you whether you take it or not.

We were not talking about whether or not opportunity was there and whether or not a person avails himself of that opportunity if it's available. The issue was the OUTCOME of that opportunity.

I can virtually guarantee you that if two people with similar products go to Capitol Hill, and one brings along some campaign contributions, and the second person just brings along a prospectus and literature extolling the virtues of their product, the first person stands a far better chance at getting favorable legislation and/or tax exemptions than the second person even if the second person has a superior product.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Crony Capitalism and the growing wealth gap (key word - growing) are irrefutably linked. To say you are not worried about the growing wealth gap is to say indirectly that you don't care about the rampant and widespread Crony Capitalism that is taking place TODAY.

If the rich were getting richer because they remain the most talented, the most worthy, and the best providers & innovators of the things we need and want I would NOT be concerned. But instead I believe they are getting richer because they are the best connected, above the law, and have the ability to put competitors out of business by pushing through legislation that benefits their cause and not the cause of the general society. That IS concerning!!!

Government created the problem because it is too big, the solution is not more government, it is less.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask these idiots why Obama the socialist rich hating liberal has made the rich richer?


Then watch them scurry

Because that is what happens when socialists attempt to apply their "principles" in the real world.

Funny thing, despite my ability to point to exactly that result in every country that labels itself as socialist, you still insist that the problem is capitalism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Crony Capitalism and the growing wealth gap (key word - growing) are irrefutably linked. To say you are not worried about the growing wealth gap is to say indirectly that you don't care about the rampant and widespread Crony Capitalism that is taking place TODAY.

If the rich were getting richer because they remain the most talented, the most worthy, and the best providers & innovators of the things we need and want I would NOT be concerned. But instead I believe they are getting richer because they are the best connected, above the law, and have the ability to put competitors out of business by pushing through legislation that benefits their cause and not the cause of the general society. That IS concerning!!!

That still does not mean that there is no opportunity for people to obtain wealth. Not everyone is going to be able to join the super rich, but the premise put forth by the democrats that the super rich are keeping everyone poor and destroying the middle class is bull shit. Anyone can achieve a decent living for themselves, it's up to them and it is only themselves that are holding them back.

Dude, I get that. I'm not making an argument for excessive welfare or that everyone deserves to be "handed success", I'm making an argument that if we are to be successful as a country we must encourage a system where the best and brightest succeed for the most part vs THE BEST CONNECTED succeeding for the most part. I feel like the scales are quickly tipping to favor the latter.

When we have the shittier company A winning out simply because it can outbribe company B (who can provide a better service to society, ultimately) we're going to have some issues. No longer will our products and services truly be "the best", they'll simply be the companies which are "the richest" which benefits only a few. Eventually the system will implode because everything we do will be second rate.

This is the point I'm trying to make.



.

And what system, in your infinite wisdom, would accomplish that? Are we supposed to guess? Or just read your mind?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

You know I am conservative.

But I don't agree that we have equality of opportunity. And I am not talking about the poor.

There is so much wealth concentration that I believe we have people who are literally buying political systems (and these systems are populated with people who want to be bought) to protect their wealth.

If it actually worked that way Maddoff would have gotten bailed out by the government.

You are reversing causality. What is actually happening is that government is working overtime to preserve its power. It does this by handing out favors that go beyond its normal scope of business. People like Gates would love to simply have money, and spend it as they see fit, but the government is threatened by that type of behavior. It sees someone who is rich enough that he thinks he can ignore the government, and it slams down on him to teach others that, without government, money is not enough to protect you from it.

There is a real problem with crony capitalism, but it is not caused by people being rich, it is caused by government getting too big for its britches.