Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Milton Friedman, economist, said capitalism runs on greed, and for once I agree with Milton. Some never seem to get enough. Romney is supposed to have between 190 million and 250 million bucks, that's 60 million he might have and isn't sure. I wonder how much money Romney needs before greed kicks in?
Milton Friedman, economist, said capitalism runs on greed, and for once I agree with Milton. Some never seem to get enough. Romney is supposed to have between 190 million and 250 million bucks, that's 60 million he might have and isn't sure. I wonder how much money Romney needs before greed kicks in?
At what point did your jealousy kick in?
Was i 1/2 million? A full million? Was it the ten million dollar mark?
The entire "question" about how much he has before "it" becomes greed is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding and some severely misguided notions.
Milton, like you are, was wrong.
Milton Friedman, economist, said capitalism runs on greed, and for once I agree with Milton. Some never seem to get enough. Romney is supposed to have between 190 million and 250 million bucks, that's 60 million he might have and isn't sure. I wonder how much money Romney needs before greed kicks in?
At what point did your jealousy kick in?
Was i 1/2 million? A full million? Was it the ten million dollar mark?
The entire "question" about how much he has before "it" becomes greed is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding and some severely misguided notions.
Milton, like you are, was wrong.
In Regent's case, right about the $25,001.01 mark
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.
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.
Yep, the dems and reps, the two most corrupt parties in history and yet the people of America keep voting for them.
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.
Yep, the dems and reps, the two most corrupt parties in history and yet the people of America keep voting for them.
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.
Yep, the dems and reps, the two most corrupt parties in history and yet the people of America keep voting for them.
What do you think would happen if they held an election and no one showed up to vote?
yep, the dems and reps, the two most corrupt parties in history and yet the people of america keep voting for them.
what do you think would happen if they held an election and no one showed up to vote?
the dead would give the dems a landslide victory
So has America ever had a truly capitalistic system? Has any nation? Does any nation today have a truly capitalistic system?
So has America ever had a truly capitalistic system? Has any nation? Does any nation today have a truly capitalistic system?
Wow. For a full fledged derp, you just went all philosophical on us.
Now, if only your question had been relevant. To anything.
So has America ever had a truly capitalistic system? Has any nation? Does any nation today have a truly capitalistic system?
Wow. For a full fledged derp, you just went all philosophical on us.
Now, if only your question had been relevant. To anything.
Sounds pretty relevant to me.
At what point did your jealousy kick in?
Was i 1/2 million? A full million? Was it the ten million dollar mark?
The entire "question" about how much he has before "it" becomes greed is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding and some severely misguided notions.
Milton, like you are, was wrong.
In Regent's case, right about the $25,001.01 mark
Could be. Anybody making more than that is clearly just greedy. The kind of fuckers who probably are trying to **gasp** "accumulate wealth!"
So has America ever had a truly capitalistic system? Has any nation? Does any nation today have a truly capitalistic system?
"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)
It is punitive and unjust to punish achievement via taxation."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)
1) Read this link. It pretty much sums it up.
Income Inequality is Bad for Society. Really Bad. » Sociological Images
2) A simple solution is to return to a tax policy similar to that of the 1950s, when there was much less income inequality. This would also have the added benefit of balancing the federal budget.
3) As for Consitutional reference, Article One, Section 8.
Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.
In your dreams maybe!
How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?
"Stole $ from in the first place"...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)
Cause it is and has been widening as well as the increasing numbers in and even below poverty. Income inequality was in fact created by the very scam artists that are now in the upper crust of society.
The more one makes the more a % they pay in taxes to help the folks who they stole $ from to begin with. After all if it weren't for this grand pyramid scheme that is skewed in their favor and NOT capitalism, they wouldn't be well off.
The govt was never meant to be run by any minority, especially the upper 1% who now own what was once We The People's govt and is now an oligarchy.
Yes, please do refer to the Constitution.
