"Income Inequality": So What?

[squeeze berry]

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

or you could be like Obama and have everything handed to you because of the color of your skin

 

[Fordsflylow]

How so? How has he had everything handed to him? Please explain?

What is the new, as of yesterday, unemployment rate among blacks? Any clue?

 

[squeeze berry]

How so? How has he had everything handed to him? Please explain?

What is the new, as of yesterday, unemployment rate among blacks? Any clue?

oh please. Get a clue

and i could care less what the black unemployment rate is. Why do you care, because blacks are special?

 

[Care4all]

How so? How has he had everything handed to him? Please explain?

What is the new, as of yesterday, unemployment rate among blacks? Any clue?

oh please. Get a clue

and i could care less what the black unemployment rate is. Why do you care, because blacks are special?

Jeebus, go back to storm front with your own ilk, pretty please, and leave us alone here at USMB....

 

[Fordsflylow]

That's EXACTLY what I thought!

Do you REALLY think they are treated equal as per the Constitution?

 

[Fordsflylow]

I used to be prejudice, but not KKK shit. Once I applied "critical thinking," solved and no longer.

I know for a fact there is plenty of prejudice, I have witnessed it recently prior to this, and it is alive and well.

For shame, but then again there is no shame coming from the right/wrong side of the aisle.

 

[squeeze berry]

That's EXACTLY what I thought!

Do you REALLY think they are treated equal as per the Constitution?

no I don't.

More than equal.

 

[squeeze berry]

How so? How has he had everything handed to him? Please explain?

What is the new, as of yesterday, unemployment rate among blacks? Any clue?

oh please. Get a clue

and i could care less what the black unemployment rate is. Why do you care, because blacks are special?

Jeebus, go back to storm front with your own ilk, pretty please, and leave us alone here at USMB....

again why should i care about black unemployment. You are the one that believes skin color is important.

Say hello to Farrakhan for me.

 

[Fordsflylow]

You are the one that believes skin color is important.

Isn't it actually you? It is a dead end road you are choosing. I believe in humanity first and foremost!

 

[Care4all]

oh please. Get a clue

and i could care less what the black unemployment rate is. Why do you care, because blacks are special?

Jeebus, go back to storm front with your own ilk, pretty please, and leave us alone here at USMB....

again why should i care about black unemployment. You are the one that believes skin color is important.

Say hello to Farrakhan for me.

You made an accusation that Obama did not earn his way up the ladder and that it was all handed to him because he was black...

A poster came in and asked you to clarify and prove your accusation,

And you avoided answering, as you still are avoiding answering...

I don't want to misjudge you, but you are not being very clear on your comments or are not willing to back up your claims, which can only lead to speculation of 'who you are' as a person...

 

[gallantwarrior]

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

or you could be like Obama and have everything handed to you because of the color of your skin

And because you lie like a rug whenever it suits your purposes.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I used to be prejudice, but not KKK shit. Once I applied "critical thinking," solved and no longer.

I know for a fact there is plenty of prejudice, I have witnessed it recently prior to this, and it is alive and well.

For shame, but then again there is no shame coming from the right/wrong side of the aisle.

OK, I'll grant you appear to have the critical part down pat. You really do need to work a lot harder on that thinking thing, though.

 

[HUGGY]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

Surely, we are not so stupid

Yes... You are. Somehow you take in information suggesting that the GAP ..."the DIFFERENCE in income between employees and management has grown significantly wider". You have confoluted that concept to mean a gamed system where the wealth of the middle class has been sucked dry and ends up in the offshore bank accounts of a handfull is a good thing because the very poor have children they cannot afford.

Ya...you are stupid.

 

[regent]

Kenneth Galbraith, former economics professor at Harvard has made a long study of the causes of the Great Depression; he came up with four main casuses, the first: economic inequality. If the money is not distributed the people that buy have no money to buy with. Same reason Henry Ford gave his employees a pay raise, so they could buy a Ford. But in a capitalistic system greed rules.

 

[squeeze berry]

You are the one that believes skin color is important.

Isn't it actually you? It is a dead end road you are choosing. I believe in humanity first and foremost!

except if they have accomplished more than you

 

[squeeze berry]

Jeebus, go back to storm front with your own ilk, pretty please, and leave us alone here at USMB....

again why should i care about black unemployment. You are the one that believes skin color is important.

Say hello to Farrakhan for me.

You made an accusation that Obama did not earn his way up the ladder and that it was all handed to him because he was black...

A poster came in and asked you to clarify and prove your accusation,

And you avoided answering, as you still are avoiding answering...

I don't want to misjudge you, but you are not being very clear on your comments or are not willing to back up your claims, which can only lead to speculation of 'who you are' as a person...

do some research yourself, I'm not doing it for you.

How did he get into the Ivy league schools, how did he afford it?

What jobs did he have before being a senator and how did he get them?

Why was he elected president?

 

[Fordsflylow]

You are the one that believes skin color is important.

Isn't it actually you? It is a dead end road you are choosing. I believe in humanity first and foremost!

except if they have accomplished more than you

Wrong answer!

Next

 

[Liability]

Kenneth Galbraith, former economics professor at Harvard has made a long study of the causes of the Great Depression; he came up with four main casuses, the first: economic inequality. If the money is not distributed the people that buy have no money to buy with. Same reason Henry Ford gave his employees a pay raise, so they could buy a Ford. But in a capitalistic system greed rules.

What John Kenneth Galbraith actually suggested was that there appears to be some relationship between income inequality (the gap) and unemployment. The disparity between the very rich and the low end earners grows, so too does the unemployment rate.

The criticisms of his thinking are hardly surprising.

But one thing should leap off the pages.

The money is NEVER a fixed amount. As the economy grows, so too does the amount of wealth. If the rich are getting richer (oh nozies, we can't have THAT can we?) that does NOT mean that the less affluent cannot ALSO be getting wealthier.

The way things actually work is tht if you give some artificial across the board raise to workers getting the minimum wage, you are not taking it from the very wealthy. Hell, they might even beneit. But the money does "come from" somewhere and what you are really doing is driving up costs. For it costs the producers MORE to pay for their minimum wage workers, and that means the cost of the product or services have to go up. And not only do we all get hit with higher costs for goods and services, but as a practical matter, to achieve some ability to stay competitive, producers will CUT employment.

It is absolutely NOT true that capitalism is "greedy." But it is responsive to outside pressures. And these idiotic tinkerings guys like you endorse have lots of undesired and often unanticipated consequences.

 

[Againsheila]

Kenneth Galbraith, former economics professor at Harvard has made a long study of the causes of the Great Depression; he came up with four main casuses, the first: economic inequality. If the money is not distributed the people that buy have no money to buy with. Same reason Henry Ford gave his employees a pay raise, so they could buy a Ford. But in a capitalistic system greed rules.

In a truly capitalistic society, the income wouldn't be so unequal. Government wouldn't be bailing out big business and banks and unions would be forcing corporations to pay reasonable wages with reasonable guarantees.

I think the majority of the people here don't know what a truly capitalistic society is, they only clammer for one when things are against them, they are all in favor of socialism when it helps them.

In a capitalistic society, there would be no bailouts to big banks. They would have gone under and the rest of us would be paying less in taxes and eventually our economy would recover. Instead, the bailout has increased the income gap, making things easier on the rich and harder on the poor and middle class who have to pay the taxes that bailed out the rich who really should have paid for their own mistakes.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Kenneth Galbraith, former economics professor at Harvard has made a long study of the causes of the Great Depression; he came up with four main casuses, the first: economic inequality. If the money is not distributed the people that buy have no money to buy with. Same reason Henry Ford gave his employees a pay raise, so they could buy a Ford. But in a capitalistic system greed rules.

In a truly capitalistic society, the income wouldn't be so unequal. Government wouldn't be bailing out big business and banks and unions would be forcing corporations to pay reasonable wages with reasonable guarantees.

I think the majority of the people here don't know what a truly capitalistic society is, they only clammer for one when things are against them, they are all in favor of socialism when it helps them.

In a capitalistic society, there would be no bailouts to big banks. They would have gone under and the rest of us would be paying less in taxes and eventually our economy would recover. Instead, the bailout has increased the income gap, making things easier on the rich and harder on the poor and middle class who have to pay the taxes that bailed out the rich who really should have paid for their own mistakes.

And where did the bailouts come from? Did the voters (taxpayers) make the decision to bail out failing businesses? No, the pols did. Pols from both sides of the aisle who had some vested interest in paying back the entities who pay into their reelection coffers. One hand washing the other, as it were.