Income Inequailty Rhetoric is Class Warfare

[The Rabbi]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

What programs from the 1980s have we continued?

 

[rightwinger]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

What programs from the 1980s have we continued?

Tax rates, capital gains exemptions, subsidies, labor restirctions, deregulation

 

[FJO]

A finite economic system can only generate a finite amount of wealth over any finite period of time.

How that wealth gets divided within that economy is what determinies income inequality.

In a market economy wealth isn't "divided." It's earned. The fact that some people have superior skills, intelligence and ambition is the primary reason for differences in income.

Then how is a moron like GW wealthy?
The Walmart inheritors.
Your statement is partially true.

At least they did not prostitute themselves like the gigolo, John Kerry.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

What programs from the 1980s have we continued?

Tax rates, capital gains exemptions, subsidies, labor restirctions, deregulation

Taxes went up under Bush, Clinton, and Obama.
Exemptions have decreased.
I dont know what you mean by subsidies
I dont know what you mean by labor restrictions. Labor laws have changed a lot since the 1980s.
There has been no deregulation since the early 1980s. There has been extensive regulation, like Sarbanes/Oxley, Dodd Frank and ACA.
A total fail, Nutwinger.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

first off the idea that wealthy people "just keep the money" is false. if that were true, there would be
NO business at all.
obviously the concept of trickle down escapes you.
its very easy.
Some one or a group decides to start a business. employees are hired to do the
work. in turn the employees spend their earnings at other busiu
they also pay taxes which fund government and education. the workers also buy homes
or rent housing. and so on.
somewhere along the line you libs created your own definition for trickle down
to mean " you have more than we do. you should surrender some
of your wealth so that we may share it."

 

[hangover]

The rich call it class warfare when the slaves complain.....

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

first off the idea that wealthy people "just keep the money" is false. if that were true, there would be
NO business at all.
obviously the concept of trickle down escapes you.
its very easy.
Some one or a group decides to start a business. employees are hired to do the
work. in turn the employees spend their earnings at other busiu
they also pay taxes which fund government and education. the workers also buy homes
or rent housing. and so on.
somewhere along the line you libs created your own definition for trickle down
to mean " you have more than we do. you should surrender some
of your wealth so that we may share it."

See, people project their own experiences. Nutwinger has never had excess income. All his income goes to paying the mortgage on his row house or whatever. So he imagines that if he had suddenly had twice the income he does now, he would buy a new car or take a vacation. And so he assumes wealthy/high income people would do the same, but more so.
But it isn't true. High income people already pretty much max out their personal spending. Extra money in the form of a tax cut will not increase their consumption. It will increase their savings and investing, however, which is how you get to economic growth. Growth comes from business investment,not consumer spending. This is one of the biggest conceptions on the left, that it is otherwise.

 

[rightwinger]

The rich call it class warfare when the slaves complain.....

That is exactly the issue. The playing field is tilted so heavily towards the wealthy that any attempt to equalize opportunity is decried as "Socialism"

 

[rightwinger]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

first off the idea that wealthy people "just keep the money" is false. if that were true, there would be
NO business at all.
obviously the concept of trickle down escapes you.
its very easy.
Some one or a group decides to start a business. employees are hired to do the
work. in turn the employees spend their earnings at other busiu
they also pay taxes which fund government and education. the workers also buy homes
or rent housing. and so on.
somewhere along the line you libs created your own definition for trickle down
to mean " you have more than we do. you should surrender some
of your wealth so that we may share it."

It is not more money that drives economic expansion but more market. If I sell 1 million widget a year and suddenly my profit increases, I do not produce more widgets....I keep the profit

It is only if there are more people buying widgets that I increase production

 

[The Rabbi]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

first off the idea that wealthy people "just keep the money" is false. if that were true, there would be
NO business at all.
obviously the concept of trickle down escapes you.
its very easy.
Some one or a group decides to start a business. employees are hired to do the
work. in turn the employees spend their earnings at other busiu
they also pay taxes which fund government and education. the workers also buy homes
or rent housing. and so on.
somewhere along the line you libs created your own definition for trickle down
to mean " you have more than we do. you should surrender some
of your wealth so that we may share it."

It is not more money that drives economic expansion but more market. If I sell 1 million widget a year and suddenly my profit increases, I do not produce more widgets....I keep the profit

It is only if there are more people buying widgets that I increase production

Bingo. Did I call it or what?

 

[rightwinger]

first off the idea that wealthy people "just keep the money" is false. if that were true, there would be
NO business at all.
obviously the concept of trickle down escapes you.
its very easy.
Some one or a group decides to start a business. employees are hired to do the
work. in turn the employees spend their earnings at other busiu
they also pay taxes which fund government and education. the workers also buy homes
or rent housing. and so on.
somewhere along the line you libs created your own definition for trickle down
to mean " you have more than we do. you should surrender some
of your wealth so that we may share it."

It is not more money that drives economic expansion but more market. If I sell 1 million widget a year and suddenly my profit increases, I do not produce more widgets....I keep the profit

It is only if there are more people buying widgets that I increase production

Bingo. Did I call it or what?

Its called supply and demand

Increasing supply in the absense of demand has never been a result of increased profits

 

[hangover]

It is not more money that drives economic expansion but more market. If I sell 1 million widget a year and suddenly my profit increases, I do not produce more widgets....I keep the profit

It is only if there are more people buying widgets that I increase production

Bingo. Did I call it or what?

Its called supply and demand

Increasing supply in the absense of demand has never been a result of increased profits

Not so sure about that. Banks are awash in cash from the FED. Liquidity is about $2 trillion, without any demand for it because unemployment is so low and wages too. But the banks profit from it through investments in the stock market. Banks now own 89% of stocks.

 

[Richard-H]

The problem is not "income inequality", the problem is EXCESSIVE "income inequality".

The solution is not "wealth redistribution", the solution is "fair wealth distribution".

Everyone in our society grabs all the money they can - there is no relationship between productivity and wealth. Those that can grab it all do - leaving crumbs for the rest (and bitch about giving up those crumbs) Some people work very hard at grabbing all the money they can - without doing anything productive.

Creating wealth means, to many people, the hording of capital assets. But wealth is actually created by the production of physical items of value. These are produced mostly by labor. Capital controls the resources - often disallowing the creation of wealth. (Right now the U.S. is operating at only 75% of it's economic capacity because investors refuse to capitalize production).

Here's an example of unfair wealth distribution:

I have a friend who dropped out of college, he is making in excess of $160k/yr. as a commercial real estate agent in NYC. He is not a highly educated person, as a matter of fact most people consider him an idiot.

On the other hand, I know many research chemists, quite a few of who have doctorates. Few of these have ever made close to $160k/yr. They are subject to arbitrary layoffs. Many go for long periods of unemployment. Many have to relocate every few years when they do find a job.

Yet, it's the research chemists that make a considerable contribution to the creation of real wealth in our society - they've created products that each and everyone of you use and benefit from every day.

This is essentially the problem -we've created so many ways for non-productive people to horde capital assets while devaluing the productive people.

And OF COURSE all the non-productive wealth horders are goin' fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.

But I guess that's why we're having this debate!

 

[Vox]

This thread is about the ancient battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". There is a lot of history.

When the representatives of the Have Nots get control, and get their way, for awhile you have Socialism...until the money runs out...and then it collapses.

Always has; always will. Most recent prominent examples---U.S.S.R and Detroit.

How did socialism collapse Detroit? De industrialization was the cause and Detroit didn't have enough diversity to keep it going. Same thing happened in Seattle about 40 years ago after Boeing did huge layoffs. Will the last person in Seattle turn of the lights was the saying. Times got better and Boeing started hiring again thanks in part to huge government contracts You know, the same thing that made conservative anti socialist dick cheney a multimillionaire. So I guess you could say that socialism rebuilt Seattle and Halliburton.

Seattle is one of the wealthiest cities in the nation. Why? Because the city leaders did not want the city resting solely on a aircraft manufacturing sector. The city leaders invited and persuaded other industries to locate in and around Seattle.
On the other had, Detroit's leaders stuck all of their eggs in the auto industry basket. Meanwhile the politicians going back 50 years were stealing some of the eggs. Kwame Kilpatrick one of the biggest crooks in the history of elected officials just got sent up the river for the next 28 years.
BTW, does not build much in the way of military aircraft.
There are just a few models...
The AH-64 attack "Apache" Helicopter
The F/A 18 "Growler" electronic combat and attack model
The fabulous and versatile F/A 18 Super Hornet
And The old warhorse F-15 Strike Eagle.
Boeing: EA-18G Airborne Electronic Attack Aircraft
Most of Boeing's business is in commercial aircraft

that is going to end up. they just elected the most idiotic mayor possible

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

first off the idea that wealthy people "just keep the money" is false. if that were true, there would be
NO business at all.
obviously the concept of trickle down escapes you.
its very easy.
Some one or a group decides to start a business. employees are hired to do the
work. in turn the employees spend their earnings at other busiu
they also pay taxes which fund government and education. the workers also buy homes
or rent housing. and so on.
somewhere along the line you libs created your own definition for trickle down
to mean " you have more than we do. you should surrender some
of your wealth so that we may share it."

It is not more money that drives economic expansion but more market. If I sell 1 million widget a year and suddenly my profit increases, I do not produce more widgets....I keep the profit

It is only if there are more people buying widgets that I increase production

But this is only where you are half right and forget about Salesmen, some can sel iice to an eskimo. There was no demand for a home computer but they created that demand. I dontsee what the big deal with Blue ray is but people but it. I was using the same cell phone for ffive years but other folks keep on Ugrrading. And I still have fun with my PS2...don't want a 3 or a 4

 

[RightDown]

Question why does a income gap need to be closed to bring people out of poverty?
Income inequality is a hollow rhetoric that its only purpose is to promote class warfare and income redistribution
Wealth is not finite it can be created there is not one pie that needs to be divided evenly

I will give an example how income inequality is a failed argument
lets say the poverty level is 20,000 per year. you have an individual who makes 15k a year and you want to bring him out of poverty. You have another individual who makes 100k a years so you have a 85k a year income gap between the two. Here is the question
is it better to take 10k from the 100k a year individual and give it to the 15k a year individual there for bring him out of poverty and establishing a 65k income gap, or is it better for the 15k a year individual create his own wealth and make 10k more a year to bring him up to 25k.
According to using a closure of a income gap as a measure of success it is best to take away from the 100k a year individual then to have the 15k individual create his own wealth because you would have an income gap of 65K instead of the 75k that you would have if he created his own wealth

You see why Income inequality/income gap is a hollow rhetoric a useless statistic that does nothing but create class envy and warfare

This is nonsensical.

The issue with income inequality is that labor is not being paid its due. That the bargaining deck is stacked in favor of the capitalist. That division of profit / income is disproportianately going to the people that don't do the work....grotesquely so.

That is undeniable.

For some reason, guys like you seem to think that's A-ok and that any remediation is tantamount to classwarfare.

You'll know classwarfare when you see it. Labor will start sniping various CEOs. Out of a sense of self-preservation, they'll start paying what's due.

Anyways, if the rich capitalist is excused from this gluttonous behavior, then you can point at the poor and say, "they deserve their lot!" But do they? Do their kids? The 22% of american kids that live in poverty...the 1/4 going to bed hungry.

Are there no prisons? Ah what's the use. You seem to think that you know something of economics and fairness and those things inform your sickness.

There was a time when real americans would look at those poverty numbers and think they stink and we'd do something about it. Many of today's people are spoiled little brats with sadistic views undeserving of the big brain god gave them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Question why does a income gap need to be closed to bring people out of poverty?
Income inequality is a hollow rhetoric that its only purpose is to promote class warfare and income redistribution
Wealth is not finite it can be created there is not one pie that needs to be divided evenly

I will give an example how income inequality is a failed argument
lets say the poverty level is 20,000 per year. you have an individual who makes 15k a year and you want to bring him out of poverty. You have another individual who makes 100k a years so you have a 85k a year income gap between the two. Here is the question
is it better to take 10k from the 100k a year individual and give it to the 15k a year individual there for bring him out of poverty and establishing a 65k income gap, or is it better for the 15k a year individual create his own wealth and make 10k more a year to bring him up to 25k.
According to using a closure of a income gap as a measure of success it is best to take away from the 100k a year individual then to have the 15k individual create his own wealth because you would have an income gap of 65K instead of the 75k that you would have if he created his own wealth

You see why Income inequality/income gap is a hollow rhetoric a useless statistic that does nothing but create class envy and warfare

This is nonsensical.

The issue with income inequality is that labor is not being paid its due. That the bargaining deck is stacked in favor of the capitalist. That division of profit / income is disproportianately going to the people that don't do the work....grotesquely so.

That is undeniable.

For some reason, guys like you seem to think that's A-ok and that any remediation is tantamount to classwarfare.

You'll know classwarfare when you see it. Labor will start sniping various CEOs. Out of a sense of self-preservation, they'll start paying what's due.

Anyways, if the rich capitalist is excused from this gluttonous behavior, then you can point at the poor and say, "they deserve their lot!" But do they? Do their kids? The 22% of american kids that live in poverty...the 1/4 going to bed hungry.

Are there no prisons? Ah what's the use. You seem to think that you know something of economics and fairness and those things inform your sickness.

There was a time when real americans would look at those poverty numbers and think they stink and we'd do something about it. Many of today's people are spoiled little brats with sadistic views undeserving of the big brain god gave them.

You think a lot, don't you? WIth your tushy.

 

[Vox]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

yes, it did. in the economic boom of the eighties to mid-2000

 

[Vox]

Question why does a income gap need to be closed to bring people out of poverty?
Income inequality is a hollow rhetoric that its only purpose is to promote class warfare and income redistribution
Wealth is not finite it can be created there is not one pie that needs to be divided evenly

I will give an example how income inequality is a failed argument
lets say the poverty level is 20,000 per year. you have an individual who makes 15k a year and you want to bring him out of poverty. You have another individual who makes 100k a years so you have a 85k a year income gap between the two. Here is the question
is it better to take 10k from the 100k a year individual and give it to the 15k a year individual there for bring him out of poverty and establishing a 65k income gap, or is it better for the 15k a year individual create his own wealth and make 10k more a year to bring him up to 25k.
According to using a closure of a income gap as a measure of success it is best to take away from the 100k a year individual then to have the 15k individual create his own wealth because you would have an income gap of 65K instead of the 75k that you would have if he created his own wealth

You see why Income inequality/income gap is a hollow rhetoric a useless statistic that does nothing but create class envy and warfare

This is nonsensical.

The issue with income inequality is that labor is not being paid its due. That the bargaining deck is stacked in favor of the capitalist. That division of profit / income is disproportianately going to the people that don't do the work....grotesquely so.

That is undeniable.

For some reason, guys like you seem to think that's A-ok and that any remediation is tantamount to classwarfare.

You'll know classwarfare when you see it. Labor will start sniping various CEOs. Out of a sense of self-preservation, they'll start paying what's due.

Anyways, if the rich capitalist is excused from this gluttonous behavior, then you can point at the poor and say, "they deserve their lot!" But do they? Do their kids? The 22% of american kids that live in poverty...the 1/4 going to bed hungry.

Are there no prisons? Ah what's the use. You seem to think that you know something of economics and fairness and those things inform your sickness.

There was a time when real americans would look at those poverty numbers and think they stink and we'd do something about it. Many of today's people are spoiled little brats with sadistic views undeserving of the big brain god gave them.

what you write IS nonsensical.

labor is generally paid what it is worth. Unless the government restrictions on the businesses and the market make unemployment so high that there is no incentive to increase the labor pay as there is oversupply of the labor and under-supply of the jobs.

Blame your stupid leftard policies for that.

and the more you wage class warfare - the LESS jobs there will be and the LESS labor will be paid.

 

[Indeependent]

It is not a question of taking from the rich and giving to the poor but one of....Why do we continue programs from 1980s supply side economics that favor the wealthy?

Trickle down never happened.....The wealthy just kept the money

yes, it did. in the economic boom of the eighties to mid-2000

I remember the boom of October 1987 very well.
How old are you to not know about this Reagan induced crash?
You know, forcing the banks to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to manufacture all of our appliances.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

And a lot of the 90s sucked too.
Until Clinton got lucky with the DOT COM bubble.