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.
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.
But still. It isn't.
"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)
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.
"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.
THAT is the flaw in your argument.
Your premise that those who have earned high amounts of money or have large amounts of money did so through theft from others is total bullshit.
"Stole $ from in the first place"...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.
THAT is the flaw in your argument.
Your premise that those who have earned high amounts of money or have large amounts of money did so through theft from others is total bullshit.
Here's your time to shine! Who lost $ in the latest crash? Who gained wealth? Who's fault was it and who was stolen from; the poor, middle class, or the elite? If you are of the middle class and have a 401k what was/is it worth now?
"Stole $ from in the first place"...
THAT is the flaw in your argument.
Your premise that those who have earned high amounts of money or have large amounts of money did so through theft from others is total bullshit.
Here's your time to shine! Who lost $ in the latest crash? Who gained wealth? Who's fault was it and who was stolen from; the poor, middle class, or the elite? If you are of the middle class and have a 401k what was/is it worth now?
The wealthy lost the most money in the latest crash.
The unions gained wealth
My 401k/IRA is worth more now than it has ever been. But that's because I invest it myself.
Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.
In your dreams maybe!
And your denial is based on what?
How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?
You are spewing nonsense.
"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.
THAT is the flaw in your argument.
Your premise that those who have earned high amounts of money or have large amounts of money did so through theft from others is total bullshit.
Major bs! You either one of, or you are just too damn dumb or blind to see it.
Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people.
Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people.
This is my nomination for dumbest post of the day...hhmm...maybe week.
As Cesspit posted today/this week?
Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people.
This is my nomination for dumbest post of the day...hhmm...maybe week.
Has Cesspit posted today/this week?
OK, you think there is some other reason? You think stupid lazy people ought to make the same money as smart hard-working people?
I nominate your post as Dumbest Evah.
"Stole $ from in the first place"...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.
THAT is the flaw in your argument.
Your premise that those who have earned high amounts of money or have large amounts of money did so through theft from others is total bullshit.
Oh yah, I'm sure all those rich fucks are just outstanding people.
wealth is good, it not only makes life easier, it has some magic appeal, one appeal is the deference given to wealth by others. People that are wealthy expect deference from the common folk, no longer kneeling but maybe a tip the hat or using the word sir is enough. Would a trump expect any less? For some reason we usually can tell the wealthy from the poor, little tip-offs, veblan, the economist, called them conspicuous consumption. These status symbols are the key to knowing when the wealthy are about. One has to be careful though some poor acquire them mostly for the deference factor, they are not truly wealthy.
Wealth is a form of separating the superior folk from the inferior and both wealth and poor should know their place and the rules. The rules are as old as governments. The problem in a democracy is that the rules get shakey and so wealth uses some of their money to remind us of the rules: The wealthy have special talents, worked hard, took risks, and a number were careful to select rich parents. To question the deference given to wealth by government, one is envious, lazy, a food stamper, or a communist.
This is my nomination for dumbest post of the day...hhmm...maybe week.
Has Cesspit posted today/this week?
OK, you think there is some other reason? You think stupid lazy people ought to make the same money as smart hard-working people?
I nominate your post as Dumbest Evah.
Mo Fo, there are a plenthora of reasons. The one you stated might be one of them, but it is hardly the only one, or major one....
Don't worry, I don't expect you to delve too much in to issues. You never do...
Here's your time to shine! Who lost $ in the latest crash? Who gained wealth? Who's fault was it and who was stolen from; the poor, middle class, or the elite? If you are of the middle class and have a 401k what was/is it worth now?
The wealthy lost the most money in the latest crash.
The unions gained wealth
My 401k/IRA is worth more now than it has ever been. But that's because I invest it myself.
You know, you are either of the 1%, OR you are voluntarily blind/ignorant of the facts. Of course they did, cause they (1%) hoard the most wealth of the nation and have the most when compared to the other 99%. They weren't hurt in the least by the crash. Do you have any hard luck stories of the wealthy you'd like to share with all regarding?
The lower classes lost wayy more % of wealth than the upper crust would ever admit to, AND they didn't have much to begin with.
Unions DID NOT gain as you CLAIM. They have collectively been losing for decades thanks to those in the upper crust who coerce folks into believing this and all the other bs you all shovel and the oodles of con lovers/blind followers swallow.
IF your 401K is worth more than ever NOW, you are either lying OR can thank the market for being close to 1000 points of what it was prior to the crash. Regardless, the market is not a good barometer of our economy's pro's or con's.
