"Income Inequality": So What?

[Liability]

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.



Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

^ still clueless.

 

[hortysir]

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.



Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

*ahem*

promote the general welfare

 

[thereisnospoon]

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.



Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

That is YOUR interpretation. Not based in fact.
Your statement is vague and so broad it is without meaning.
Once again....To ensure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.
That's it. That's all. It's incontrovertible.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

*ahem*

promote the general welfare

Can you believe that bullshit?
The scary part is I think he believes it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

*ahem*

promote the general welfare

OOPS....Yer right...Thanks!...Promote it is..

 

[KevinWestern]

There is a difference. The size of the difference has grown over the past x number of years. And? I mean, seriously, "So what?"

Why is this necessarily a "bad" thing?

Even if it "is" a supposedly "bad" thing, what is the "solution" to this alleged "problem?"

Is income inequality a bad thing? That's a toughie.

Moderate income inequality is definitely a GOOD thing. I don’t think doctors with 12 years of schooling beyond high school should make the same wage as a guy who mans a register at Jewel. Communism doesn't work with humans.

However...

Too much inequality is a BAD thing. Why? As I’ve stated before, I think wealth concentration can diminish group potential. If a country has the resources to educate 100% of its population, but distributes wealth in a way where only 50-60% can access that education effectively, than the country will be “missing out” on the gains that could have come from the minds – if properly cultivated – from that bottom 40%. A statewide pool of 1,000,000 students will likely yield a much smarter "top person" than a countywide pool of 1,000 students.

Also, excessive wealth inequality will lead to instability, revolution, and sometimes violence.

.

YOUR notions of what is "good" or "bad" are purely matters of belief.

I did not ask for some ungrounded vague opinions or impressions.

As noted in the paper I linked to earlier, there is reason to conclude that income inequality is in FACT a good thing.

All of this, by the way, is a pretty ephemeral conversation since the use of terms which fail to even define what we mean when we talk of the "top earners" makes the conversation more a matter of impression and feelings than of facts.

And your effort to steer the conversation to "education" is interesting, but actually pretty much off topic.

,

I did indeed mention that income inequality is (in my opinion) a good thing in many respects. It serves as a motivator, and an innovation driver (to name a few).

However, can't you at least agree that there's a point when the inequality becomes excessive, and might actually be burdensome to society?



.

 

[Dr Grump]

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..I thought Ruth Westheimer was "Dr. Fuck"...!!!!
All kidding aside. Yer spot on. He contradicted himself.

No, you're arguing something different from what I am...I expect the Rabbi to do that because I've seen dog turd show more signs of intelligence than him. However, I expect better from you...even if you are wrong...

No, dumbshit. You gave it away. Your sister in law doesnt care about the money. The job satisfaction is her "pay" not the dollars she brings home. So in a sense if you consider "total compensation" to include job satisfaction she is well paid. And as you say she works very hard. Yet another example of hard work yielding high "pay".

Is that you saying - in a round about way - that pay inequity might not be because some people aren't dumber or work less harder than others? Bout time you realised that you dumb sack of shit...

 

[Valerie]

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..I thought Ruth Westheimer was "Dr. Fuck"...!!!!
All kidding aside. Yer spot on. He contradicted himself.

No, you're arguing something different from what I am...I expect the Rabbi to do that because I've seen dog turd show more signs of intelligence than him. However, I expect better from you...even if you are wrong...

I haven't read this thread yet, but on the surface I would say you may reconsider giving much credence to the guy who named himself after a spoon..or lack thereof.

 

[jillian]

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

^ still clueless.

so what do you believe the general welfare clause intended? and before you answer, i'd refer you to helvering v davis so you don't replace the law which applies, with your own opinion.

 

[midcan5]

So much of the this discussion is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. When I ride through sections of Philly, NJ, and the burbs today you see the real impact of wealth distribution. No one thinks hard work shouldn't be rewarded, but that is hardly the case when you start at the top and the real workers hardly make it or lose what they have. HBO's show HardTimes covers people who were near the top, but due to a corporate mentality that worships money however it is gotten, they have lost their jobs to outsourcing. Outsourcing doesn't simply affect those outsourced, it affects everyone as the economic base of the nation dries up.

It is an odd thought but had Keynesian economics not been deployed in the recent crash and America had returned to bread lines and the poverty of the third world, it may have made more Americans realize the reality of job loss instead of spewing nonsense such as the cold hearted stupidity of the OP that started this thread. Many Americans today have no soul nor heart nor sense.

HBO: Hard Times: Lost on Long Island: Home

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/220510-the-greatest-job-creator-of-all-time.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-the-jobs-crisis-report-6.html#post4513217

"Inequality on the March" by J. Bradford DeLong | Project Syndicate

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/timothy-noah-on-inequality-crisis

http://andrewgelman.com/2007/02/why_do_the_poor/

The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different — And Not In a Good Way, Studies Suggest The 'Haves' show less empathy than 'Have-nots' by Brian Alexander The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Fordsflylow]

Think about what life would be like under the liberal socialist dream of equal income for the masses. It would accomplish one thing though, the illegal aliens would stop trying to get to America.

No one's arguing for equal pay. Most "left" posters here are just concerned about the widening gap of wealth distribution within the United States.

Imagine a vast, bountiful island full of resources that hosts a population of 1,000 people. If you model the island off of the United States today, about 10 folks would claim ~35% of the ENTIRE BOUNTY (wealth) for themselves. The next 90 folks would claim an additional ~35% or so.

This leaves us with a situation where 100 people on the island control over 70% of all of the island resources, leaving the remaining 900 to fend for the remaining 30%. The bottom 500 folks share in only 3% of the bounty.

Why might this be bad? In my opinion, I think for a few reasons. Here are two:

1.) instability. As those 10 folks continue to horde more and more of the wealth, the bottom 990 people will become increasingly more agitated and hostile. Eventually, some sort of 'revolution' will become inevitable, and the country (or island) will be racked with (potentially) violent turmoil.

2.) inefficiency. If our finest schools, educations, and resources are accessible to only a tiny portion of the population, then we will be without a doubt missing out on harvesting the true potential of the entire population at hand. A child - for example - could be a genius. However, because his family was poor, let's say he was forced to drop out of school and take a low-paying job at a gas station. Wasted potential. If you educate a pool of 1,000 students you are likelier to have a much smarter "top ten" then if you educate a pool of only 10 students.


Any thoughts?


.

Makes compete sense to me, but then I'm sure the neocon's here on the boards will find something wrong with it and if not they'll make something up.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Hate filled BS? Dude, are you looking in the mirror.......because you're the bitter, wealth envy guy who wants to stick it to the "man" for being "unfair".

Sure, I'll spill the beans. I was born in 1957 to parents who grew up in houses with no running water or electricity, grown up in the depression and went thru WWII. My dad plowed the family farm with a team of mules before he graduated high school and enlisted in the Marines in 1942. When he got out, he and my mom married. He went thru a succession of jobs before moving to the "city" and working 32 years at a meat packing plant. He was a disciplined, moral, Christian man who didn't drink or cuss. His only vice was smoking. Over time, his pay increased because he was an asset to the company. He put a roof over four kids heads, clothed us, fed us and paid for a college education he never had. He did better than his parents and he was determined in kind that his kids would do better than him. He built a den, master bedroom and bathroom onto our modest two bedroom, wood frame house. My 82 year old mother still lives there. Eventually, he was able to by a lot and cabin at a lake as well as a travel trailer he and mom pulled all over the country in retirement. He was a life long Democrat and a union member.......but the Democratic party from then to now are two entirely different animals.

Me, I minded my P's and Q's because I knew I'd get the belt if I got out of line or got in trouble. I respected my teachers and my elders and paid attention in school. I dug ditches for the plumber across the street from us when I was 14. When I was 16, I went to work stocking shelves in a department store. From there I went to work in a grocery store where I started by doing carry out, then bagging, cashier and eventually working in the office. I learned a lot about business, work ethic, customer service, etc. while working those jobs.

Upon graduation in 1975, I went to college and graduated there in 1979. I started working part time at a bank as a courier. Then I became a teller and eventually went full time. After a couple of years doing that, I was hired as a customer service rep for a bank that did data processing for banks across the state. I got married and had a furnished apartment and two car payments. Money didn't go far, but we made it. Eventually, we were able to buy our own furniture, then a brand new house. I became a customer service supervisor and then a customer service officer. After about 6 years working there, banks hit the skids in the late 80's and the bank decided to get out of the data processing business. I knew I would lose my job as we shed customers, so I found another job with a company that did data processing for savings and loans. I was on the conversion teams that converted new S&L customers off of their old data processing system onto ours. After 5 or 6 years, the bottom fell out of the S&L's and I was "deconverting" customers off of our system over to the surviving S&L's or banks that were buying their assets. I know my days were numbered there and went to work for one of the largest banks in the state as an operations officer overseeing their checking account system. Banking was changing and larger regional banks were buying up the larger state banks. I saw it coming and went to work for another data processing company who I've worked for 16 years now.

I was able to move from job to job without missing a single day of work in 33 years now because I work hard and more importantly "smart" and built a solid reputation. Those evil rich bankers wanted me because I increase their bottom line. They pay me pretty decently for it too. My wife on the other hand, only has an associate degree from a junior college and has managed to out earn me by about 35% over the last 10 years or so. She works "hard" using her brain muscle.

Our son is 19 and a sophomore in college. Education was a top priority in our home. He knew it and his teachers knew it. The first day of school, his teachers would get an email from me stating so and that if there were any issues, I wanted them to let me know so we could work together to resolve them. We checked his homework every night. He became an honor student and was in the gifted class. He has chosen an engineering field of study that is highly sought after. His college is one of only two with an accredited program and there are only about 200 total in his program. Large corporations seek these students out for paid internships after their sopomore year and the vast majority graduate with a job waiting for them that pays in the high 5 figures and sometime the low 6 figures. He will do better than his mother and I.........because like my father before me, we planned it that way and instilled the needed values in him. He is an Eagle Scout and has worked since he was 16 and had to buy his own truck while maintaining straight A's. He already has a strong work ethic and laughs at the kids who think their boss "owes" them something for simply showing up.

So, those are my beans. The rules to the game are fairly simple. It worked for my dad back when he started in the late 40's and early 50s, me in the late 70's and early 80's and my son now. Anyone can do it. America is still the land of opportunity. Quit worrying about what the guy at the top has and why you think it isn't fair and that the government should take it and give part of it to you. Instead, ask what he did right that you can emulate and earn your own piece of the pie.

Like I said earlier, CAN'T never did anything.

I palyed Fordy. Now it's your turn to tell us why you are where you are. Come on, man up.

Let me begin stating that times are nothing at all like they used to be. I was born in 59, first of 3 children to a steelworker (36 years - retired) and house mom. We had electricity and running water in NW IL.

I dropped out of school in 75 and went straight to work as a warehouseman. Received my ged in 81. Got hired on as a trackman with Chicago & NW RR before relocating to TX to work for Norfolk Southern and hopefully year-round. Later I went to work for a very large construction contractor based out of Tulsa, OK, working in TX. Returned to IL in 87 working the state as soil surveyor before accepting a job for a slaughter/packing house as a foreman and ended up in the offset printing trade for 8 years before returning to school. Received my B.S. of Science in Recreation Management, minoring in Environmental Studies and graduated in 99.

Stayed in downstate IL after getting my degree and have been here going on 20 years. Worked for the park district as asst super of their 18 hole golf course, while trying to get on with the state in conservation. No go, even with my degree. Ended up taking a job helping a young man/entrepreneur get a franchise up and running, hurt my back badly and he suddenly had no use for me. After a year long recovery process and after sending out and delivering well over 150 app's I decided to put my one of my expertise's in lawncare and landscape to work and now have my own business for the past 4 years which is doing quite well. Puts food on the table with some left over.

I have 4 children, one dying at birth, 3 of which are still alive. Oldest boy is 34 and works for a secretive electronic hardware developer. 2nd son is 17 and doing well. Youngest daughter is now 15 and doing very well in school and sports.

As I stated at the very start times are NOTHING like they were back then, so there is no need for comparison imho. Unemployment for youth is currently in the 20% range, blacks 15%, whites 8.2% and I believe those figures do not tell the entire story or are accurate of just how bad it is. Wages have been going down or stagnant for blue collar workers for decades - since the reagan days and trickle-down bs that has not worked and never will, WHILE wealth has been increasing steadily for corporations and the upper 10%.

"Can't" ain't got shit to do with this depression combined with the foreclosures fiasco the banks brought on themselves and have no one to blame but themselves, but then again they don't give a rats ass what we peasants think.

THank you for replying. One of my mantras here at USMB is that life is about choices and choices matter. You were born in 59, me in 57. I graduated high school in 75 when you dropped out as a freshman. In 79, I graduated college and in 81, you got your GED. You went from a warehouse, to railroad, to construction, to soil survey, to a packing house and then offset printing over a 20 year period before getting your degree in 99. I'm sure you learned skills from one job that carried to another, but changing from one industry to another usually isn't a bump in pay because you are learning a whole new job. Imagine if you had stayed in school and graduated in 81 and then gone to college and graduated in 85 and spent the last 27 years in the same career path. Do you think life would be different for you? Do you think you'd have a different view of how to succeed? Do you think you'd have struggled as much? Do you think you'd blame people who have done better than you? We live and die by the choices WE make. We can't blame other people for our fortune or misfortune. Other choices that can be made....move locations. Looks like you did some of that, but for the unemployment rates you were listing for kids......it depends on where you live. If I had grown up in someplace like Detroit for example, I'd have been long gone long ago. Another smart choice is in what you study in school. I have a neice pushing 30 who is working on her doctorate in Medieval Literature. She is a highly intelligent girl. I'm interested in seeing what kind of job she gets when she is finally thru with school. Unless some old white haired professor dies at some college to create an opening, she will probably be a struggling public school teacher. There are good high paying career jobs out there, but you'd better get an education in the fields those jobs are in.

Look, I'm not trying to criticize you. We all pick a path and follow it. But the choices we make determine that path and the outcome. Blaming rich people because they have more than you is putting the blame in the wrong place.

So glad you felt the need to sit in judgement based on a summary of my life, while joining in with those who would love nothing better than deny me and anyone like me the right to sit in judgement of those with plenty or more than they ever will need be damned all the suffering in the lower classes. Also, so glad you made all the right decisions. Some folks can fall into a vat of shit and coming out smelling like a rose, me I'm not one of those people.

 

[Fordsflylow]

By designating "income inequality" as a problem to be "solved" by government, you are presupposing that government has the right or the power to direct the activities of the economy. It has no such right under the United States Constitution. The right to tax, and more poignantly the right to tax incomes, is merely a means of raising funds to pay for the legitimate functions of the Federal Goverment, which functions are listed - at least theoretically - in Article I Section 8. (for example, to administer immigration and naturalization, run the post offices, fund the military services, and so on). The power to tax incomes was never intended to be a device for income re-distribution from the top to the bottom, or to "level the playing field," so to speak. Again, the Government has no right to do this.

We have accepted, sadly, the practice of taxing those with higher incomes at a RATE that is higher than those with lesser incomes, thus increasing their contribution geometrically, out of all proportion with "fairness," no matter how you define it. Consider that a household with a taxable income of, say $200 thousand does not pay FOUR times as much in Federal income taxes as a household with a taxable income of $50 thousand, but as much as TEN times as much. And people at the bottom "pay" a negative income tax, in the form of the EITC.

In the social-democracies of Europe, and even in Canada (a suburb of the U.S.), they do not have to contend with the Constitution of the United States, and they have in many instances articulated policies that allow for redistribution of wealth (and government health care, etc). We have never chosen to do so, and in fact our Constitution prohibits it. If anyone or any group of people want to propose that change, then we have a very simple process to change the Constitution (not easy, but simple), and they should put their ideas to the test: see if the Congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures will but into it.

Don't hold your breath.

No, it's much easier to fight to appoint justices lacking in integrity, who care not at all about the Supreme Law of the Land, but are willing to say and write anything they find necessary to try to convert this country into one of the failed social democracies, where everyone is suckling from the Government's teats from birth to death - and we can all go bankrupt together.

What a happy thought!

Why do you support the income distribution that has occurred in the past 4 decades and still continues today from the bottom to the top? The Constitution was never meant to be perfect and was meant to be made better over time - not worse.

 

[candycorn]

"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)

Others have probably answered already but here is my take:

When the middle income Americans are making enough to have a progressively better life, it doesn't matter much. However when price increases outpace earnings increases and the middle income Americans purchase less and less, you have a soft economy.

Very clearly, the decline in organized labor is in direct correlation to the wage stagnation. Higher wages are the answer. If you want that to mean a stronger union-based workforce....okay I can listen to that however unions are greatly responsible for their own demise.

I don't see where the Government has a plank to effect this solution except through the NLRB which isn't in the Constitution of course...then again neither are Interstate highways, street lights, the space program, or was the authority to purchase the Louisiana territories.

 

[Fordsflylow]

The rising tide no longer raises all boats. Instead of ambition, our poor has envy. Instead of initiative they have jealously. Whether it's a big boat or a dinghy the boat has to be rowed. In our system, we have a few people doing the rowing, with many of them entitled to be along for the ride and demanding the lifejackets.

You are accusing the poor of lack of ambition and envy..completely avoiding the primary reason for the income gap, GREED. How many $billions did our government give the bankers and what do you think would have happened if they'd given that money to those who would spend it instead?

As you know, I volunteer at a local church and give out lunches every monday. Most of the people we see are having hard times, some through choice, other because of things done to them...we lost one of our regulars today due to pneumonia. He was not even 30. His whole life ahead of him and no job no matter how much he tried looking. Of course, it's hard to get hired when you have no address.

I'll bet a lot of you are now thinking how good it is that this young man is gone...no more hand outs for him....I pity you.

 

[Fordsflylow]

So much of the this discussion is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. When I ride through sections of Philly, NJ, and the burbs today you see the real impact of wealth distribution. No one thinks hard work shouldn't be rewarded, but that is hardly the case when you start at the top and the real workers hardly make it or lose what they have. HBO's show HardTimes covers people who were near the top, but due to a corporate mentality that worships money however it is gotten, they have lost their jobs to outsourcing. Outsourcing doesn't simply affect those outsourced, it affects everyone as the economic base of the nation dries up.

It is an odd thought but had Keynesian economics not been deployed in the recent crash and America had returned to bread lines and the poverty of the third world, it may have made more Americans realize the reality of job loss instead of spewing nonsense such as the cold hearted stupidity of the OP that started this thread. Many Americans today have no soul nor heart nor sense.

HBO: Hard Times: Lost on Long Island: Home

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/220510-the-greatest-job-creator-of-all-time.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-the-jobs-crisis-report-6.html#post4513217

"Inequality on the March" by J. Bradford DeLong | Project Syndicate

Timothy Noah on The Inequality Crisis | FiveBooks | The Browser

Why do the poor support right-wing parties? A cross-national analysis « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different — And Not In a Good Way, Studies Suggest The 'Haves' show less empathy than 'Have-nots' by Brian Alexander The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

HBO Documentary Films: Hard Times - Lost On Long Island - YouTube

I watched that last night. Great perspective was provided in that documentary. So sad in many ways!

 

[Liability]

So much of the this discussion is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. When I ride through sections of Philly, NJ, and the burbs today you see the real impact of wealth distribution. No one thinks hard work shouldn't be rewarded, but that is hardly the case when you start at the top and the real workers hardly make it or lose what they have. HBO's show HardTimes covers people who were near the top, but due to a corporate mentality that worships money however it is gotten, they have lost their jobs to outsourcing. Outsourcing doesn't simply affect those outsourced, it affects everyone as the economic base of the nation dries up.

It is an odd thought but had Keynesian economics not been deployed in the recent crash and America had returned to bread lines and the poverty of the third world, it may have made more Americans realize the reality of job loss instead of spewing nonsense such as the cold hearted stupidity of the OP that started this thread. Many Americans today have no soul nor heart nor sense.

HBO: Hard Times: Lost on Long Island: Home

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/220510-the-greatest-job-creator-of-all-time.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-the-jobs-crisis-report-6.html#post4513217

"Inequality on the March" by J. Bradford DeLong | Project Syndicate

Timothy Noah on The Inequality Crisis | FiveBooks | The Browser

Why do the poor support right-wing parties? A cross-national analysis « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different — And Not In a Good Way, Studies Suggest The 'Haves' show less empathy than 'Have-nots' by Brian Alexander The Empathy Ceiling: The Rich Are Different


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

HBO Documentary Films: Hard Times - Lost On Long Island - YouTube

I watched that last night. Great perspective was provided in that documentary. So sad in many ways!

Wait. You mean a left wing drone watched left wing tilting propaganda and found it sufficiently left wing?

Who'd'a thunked it!

 

[Fordsflylow]

liability; Apparently, seeing as you live here writing your useless smack all hours of the day night, you do not work? How do you make a living? Certainly cannot be educated. I've yet to read any useful input coming from you. You must lead a sad hateful life indeed.

 

[kwc57]

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.



Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

Which isn't taking money from half the citizens to provide a home, food, education, medical, etc. for the other half from cradle to grave.

 

[rightwinger]

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

Which isn't taking money from half the citizens to provide a home, food, education, medical, etc. for the other half from cradle to grave.

Do what is best for the country

Half the country does not provide homes, food, education and medical for the other half

Like most modern societies, we do provide for our less fortunate by providing a safety net. That has been found to be in the best interests of the country