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

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.

There is nothing new in that, it has been that way since the dawn of man. There is no new ground being plowed here.

The USA in 1776 was the best change to change that but now we have allowed ourselves to revert to a feudal system with the govt as the king.

The best chance to change it is here and now.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/336722-scotus-says-keep-punishing-the-rs-for-cheating.html

you guys have to cheat to win elections so you have no room to talk shit about anyone

 

[Truthmatters]

Youre the ultimate traitors to this country

 

[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

"Income inequality," like very other libturd propaganda meme, is a justification to loot your income. Libturds are always looking for ways to get their hands on more of what you have earned. Liberalism can't expand and grow without a growing share of the national product. They will never give up.

Tell that to the working middle class and most economists.
Income inequality is slowing the recovery because of less expendable income for the consumer class thanks to flat wages. Yet profits have been very, very good. Since 2009 a huge percentage of the income growth has been realized by only the few at the top.
Consider 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.
So I ask you, why do you hate America?

That is caused by new technology, and the fact that the government has been artificially supporting wage and benefit packages for people over adoption of that technology. That cannot last forever, and the bubble is burst. Unfortunately, most people think that proves that the rich people are evil, all it proves is that society is shifting from being supported on the backs of the little guy to machines doing the scut work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.

Actually, he argued, erroneously, that the systems is beyond repair because idiots insist that the problem is something other than what it actually is.

 

[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

Is it a healthy economic system that sequesters the majority of the wealth among the minority of the workers? Is a vibrant, upwardly mobile middle class something to be proud of, or something that should merely take care of itself? Are the ratios of pay between CEOs and workers an equitable one? Can the current ratios be sustainable?

No one is calling for redistribution of wealth. Folks are responsibly asking if the current system is fair and sustainable. Many issues seen by many Conservatives are much simpler than the Conservative pundits proclaim. Global Warming is a good example. People generally want what's best for the planet and our children's futures. Conservatives are told by pundits employed by mega corporations that Global Warming is a myth. That there is no such thing. Now why would mega corporations want you to think this way? Because it will cost money to remediate and mega corporations aren't about to spend that money.

Income inequality is another outgrowth of the laizzez faire Capitalist system championed by the mega corporations. They want to fill your mind with myths that giving the lion's share of the capital to those who own it and then slighting those who produced it by freezing wages and benefits is the wisest decision we as a society could make. This of course erodes the capital from the middle class. It's the middle class consumer spending that drives our economy. But the monied interests want you to think that a strong middle class won't possibly generate jobs like a strong minority or uber-wealthy can.

Many of our current economic problems stem from this skewed philosophy of cutting earnings of workers and enlarging the take available to the very very few.

You want to prevent the government from owning property? If not, your rant makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I'm sure you are right but how does that prevent anyone from obtaining wealth?

Again, Predfan, when a working class person loses his job because a Wallstreeter thought it would be fun and lucrative to defraud investors out of billions of dollars, and was able to do so because he had enough money to buy a few key legislators, isn't that working class person being denied a shot at obtaining wealth?

What about when all of those 401ks went belly up when the government/wall street party came to an end?

Point is that I'm concerned that the number of feasible opportunities for working class folk to move up in the world is beginning to wane. The trend is not going in the right direction. We need to reverse this.

..

If you were capable of pointing to a single example of that happening, you might have an actual point. As it is, you just look like a raving lunatic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

One of the best parts of America was that there was plenty of land. In Europe the vast majority of people had little to no chance of ever obtaining land and land was an incredibly important part of being able to earn a living and control your own destiny.

The industrial revolution and global trade also changed that equation significantly. This made access to demand a major consideration for nations and created the first major economic issue, mercantilism.

The argument over mercantilism is far more relevant to todays economies than the one over socialism.

Except that it really isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I understand that it's not very noble to envy someone for their money, I just want to note that the poor often despised the rich (especially in times past) due to the fact they were brutally, brutally oppressed by those folks and lived miserable existences without any hope of "moving up".

When you oppress a large portion of society to poverty, everyone ultimately suffers because the only pool of minds who have the resources to solve problems are the very few, very rich. If you could somehow get the WHOLE society motivated and educated to solve problems, great innovations and ideas will flourish. This is America.

However, we're once again seeing signs that the ruling elite are usurping democracy and making the rules to benefit only themselves and not the rest of society (I'm being very general of course), and I think there are people growing quite concerned about this.

How are Bill Gates, Peyton Manning, and Oprah oppressing people into poverty? How are they usurping democracy? All very rich, explain exactly how their wealth is forcing others into poverty.

I'm not talking about those people. Those are individuals who fulfill a societal demand, and have become very rich doing so. This is the proper way of things.

On the flipside, what societal demand exactly did Goldman Sachs fulfill when they defrauded investors by selling shitty mortgage backed securities as "safe, AAA investments"? In Goldman email records they clearly say "the products are shit" and they brag about how they're selling them to morons. This is fraud and they should have been arrested, but the government turns a blind eye. This is what I'm upset about.

Wow, you bought the hype.

Lots of investments were described as shit, and people who bought them dismissed as morons, why do you think Apple had so much trouble getting capital?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only profit is taxed, not principal.........capital "gain"

The profit was taxed, dumbass...they you pay taxes on it as income when you get a distribution.

You don't pay the capital gain tax until the year you have taken it

He just said that, idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The profit was taxed, dumbass...they you pay taxes on it as income when you get a distribution.

You don't pay the capital gain tax until the year you have taken it

Are you ADD or do you pretend to be stupid ?

I vote both.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.

It was just teible what those controllers did to ruin their own lives.
Just terrible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The reason Microsoft hired a lobbying firm is that, when they didn't have one, the government made an example of them for not playing the game. My guess is that the main reason other companies do it is to avoid being made into an example, like Microsoft, not to gain an advantage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Then you agree, the problem is government, not capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



your cheating is court documented all the way to the SCOTUS

they cant accept facts.

they are insane



they want this country run on a fucking pack of lies

We can't fight voter fraud, that would cost Dems political power.

 

[Londoner]

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.

We get it. Unequal outcomes (more success = more money) incentivizes the very excellence which lifts all boats through innovation and job creation. This is how we cure cancer - by rewarding excellence. If a scientist and a janitor made the same money, we'd still be the dark ages - and everyone's standard of living would be lower. What sets capitalism apart from other economic models is that it gets incentives right (-unlike socialism, which fails to tap into human motivation)
.
Nobody is arguing against this stuff that we all learned in 3rd grade. Say something new or interesting.

I think the argument is that there is unequal access to opportunity, which results in unequal outcomes. Government policies protect owners by having trade policies that allow capitalists to shop the globe for cheaper labor, but, on the other hand, they enjoy tremendous protectionism from the nanny government. American workers have to compete with sweatshops in Taiwan, but the US government crushes foreign drug competition, thus giving Ely Lilly and its investors monopoly power - which means they can fleece the poor consumer. The government, because it is owned by the wealthiest market players who fund our elections, actively intervenes in the market to help the wealthy. This why Wall Street, which owns both parties, made trillions in profits off a securities-&-derivative scheme that sank the global economy in 2008 - because the government makes sure that money flows upward, even when it sinks all boats.

Contrary to the OPs very tired strawman, the argument isn't about equality or any of that silly lefty garbage. Our problem is that capitalism's desire for lower operating costs (which resulted in shifting production to freedom hating parts of the developing world) has left the US consumption economy with too few solvent consumers. During the postwar years we had the highest paid labor force in history. As a result of all the spending money in middle-class wallets, the capitalist had an incentive to innovate and add jobs, so he could go after all of that money. The result was massive demand-fueled job growth.

But Reagan, exploiting the 70s oil shock, convinced us that our high wage system was stifling growth - so we spent the last 30 years shifting jobs to freedom hating nations and driving down American wages. To make up for the loss in wages/benefits, we aggressively expanded credit to the middle class so they could consume and survive in the face of falling wages and slashed benefits. [You get this right. Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay its workers enough to survive, much less consume at the needed levels to sustain Main Street job growth. This is why we must feed the lower classes so many credit cards and other debt gimmick] Don't get me wrong: Reagan's great credit (debt) expansion worked great for a coupled decades. But eventually the middle class consumer became too indebted to consume sufficiently in the aggregate to fuel job growth. [it got so bad that we had to cannibalize the value in our own homes just to keep economic growth going. Indeed, in the absence of viable investment opportunities, the American economy has become over dependent on inflated asset bubbles; tech and housing being the most recent]

And now - after 30 years of expanding consumer debt - we're fucked, because our only policy tool, tax breaks for the wealthy, won't change the fact that no jobs will be added until consumers can buy what is produced. You can call this problem whatever you want, but the it isn't about equality. It's about a system which doesn't pay its workers enough to buy what they produce. It's counter to Henry Ford's logic of paying the worker more so he can buy the cars he makes - otherwise, we have to feed the worker credit in order to buy the car . . . and that always ends badly, as we are now learning.

In other words. We swallowed poison in 1980.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Perhaps you don't realize that I'm the OP and perhaps you didn't read the post you first responded to. I am talking about opportunity. Why would anyone need to go to Capitol Hill to obtain wealth? I didn't. I went there twice but as a tourist. You are off topic.

 

[Truthmatters]

the republican party has turned its self into a star maker.


ask Palin why she resigned

 

[PredFan]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/336722-scotus-says-keep-punishing-the-rs-for-cheating.html

you guys have to cheat to win elections so you have no room to talk shit about anyone

Quit trolling my thread with irrelevant nonsense you drunken racist retard.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Capitalism will not thrive when winners are chosen directly by the winners (vs chosen by their usefulness to society).

To amend your point, slightly, government picking winners and losers doesn't help either.