"Income Inequality": So What?

[Fordsflylow]

The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".

Why should the poor be expected to pay taxes? They're poor! If they are working poor they still pay all taxes (i.e. income tax, etc.) cept payroll tax.

And they get it all back from the federal government and their respective state governments.
The people riding in the boat should have to pay something for their trip.
It's high time those who benefit the most from the largess of government are required to contribute. This could be done through a fair or flat tax.

No, they do not get it all back. Nice try, but no cigar!

 

[Fordsflylow]

Please..Don't use PC buzz terms like "special needs". It's insulting.
It implies the person is "less than normal".
Why is it you cannot just be honest and say what ails your kids instead of hiding behind terms like "special needs"?

You are a whiner. You carp and moan about what other people have . You whine about not being able to get the job you want. Then you backtrack by saying your career days ended when your "special needs" kids were born...
Look genius, no matter who's shoulder on which you cry, you cannot have it both ways.

Wow, what an incredibly douchy thing to say. You're a credit to your conservative ideology.

Don't usually take the low-road as most con's seem to love too.....but I have to write that you and pos like you are thee defect of nature........not the special needs "people."

 

[Fordsflylow]

Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.

You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.

Here's the point YOU missed...over the past decades the wealth of the upper 10% has increased by over 200% while the wealth of the rest of us has stagnated or gone down....Do you really believe the top 10% deserve more wealth that the bottom 90% of us combined??????

If they earned it, of course. If they stole it, no. If they "stole" it as many of you believe, then it is illegal. I don't see the government putting them in handcuffs and taking them to trial, do you?

Why would "their" govt charge them with anything let alone take them to jail?

 

[Fordsflylow]

"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)

The same old argument that continues to ignore one major fact; while the income of the wealthiest has grown by nearly 300%, everyone else's has remained stagnant, and this has happened at a time when productivity has increased substantially. Those who provide the labor to increase productivity should see some type of end reward for the work they do. Instead, what we have seen is all of that reward go to a very small percentage of the population. This did not happen because that small percentage of people worked harder or smarter. It happened because the rules of the game were rigged in favor of those very people.

The end result of all this is that it is leading us to a two class society, the haves and the have nots. This could eventually lead us to looking a lot like Mexico, but it won't. What those of you on the right don't understand is that if it gets too far out of control, those who are getting fucked the most will revolt at the polls. Eventually, we could end up with a situation where true socialism takes hold. You should check the history books. The thing that always precedes socialism or communism is a state where the very few become too wealthy and too powerful while the rest of society suffers. It just is not in the best interest of the very wealthy to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, greed can be a terrible thing and lead people to making terrible choices. Protecting the wealthy comes at a cost, and that cost is making certain that the majority of everyone else is reaping some of the benefits. That has nothing to do with making everything equal for everyone, it just means that the little guy is not getting completely fucked.

Amazing to read something so similar to what I have been writing and stating for several decades.

 

[Fordsflylow]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

Donald Trump works 85 hours a week.

First Job: Donald Trump - Forbes.com

Are you willing to work 85 hours a week?

I don't believe a word the guy spews and he's just another rich asshole in a long list of rich assholes.

 

[Dr Grump]

categorically, YES.
I believe everyone has goodness in their heart.
And even if there is a profit motive as a side benefit, so what?
Why does profit bother you?
Look, these kids get free computers. The company gets to pay their people to make more of the machines. The company gets to sell more. Everybody wins!
Gosh, you must be bitter.

Nope, just a parent that objects to schools spending educational dollars on computers for each child in the school when a computer lab makes more cents <yes, I spelled it that way on purpose>. Not everybody wins...the taxpayer loses...plus the child becomes dependent on the computer for everything..also not a good thing. The only true winner is Bill Gates and his company, remember, computer pusher....

I really feel for this generation when the computers go down...

In many ways, we are severely handicapped by our technology. How many young people now know how to use a slide rule? How about a compass and a map? And how can anyone imagine the time when we actually had to be home to answer the phone when it rang?

It's called moving with the times...

 

[Dr Grump]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

Donald Trump works 85 hours a week.

First Job: Donald Trump - Forbes.com

Are you willing to work 85 hours a week?

I don't believe a word the guy spews and he's just another rich asshole in a long list of rich assholes.

Neither do I. He's a birfer for a start. Aside from that his father made all the money, and the only reason he didn't go bankrupt was because his debts were so big the banks couldn't afford for him to do so.

I read an in-depth piece on the guy about six or seven years ago (and this might have changed), but he is nowhere near worth as much as he says he is. In fact, he objected one year that Forbes said he was worth a lot less than he said he was. These days he tends to make deals that are a lot less riskier to him than his investors. He always manages to keep naming rights etc, but if you delve a little deeper you'll find a lot of what he 'owns' is very much a minority stake, but he keeps the naming rights of a joint, which gives off the impression he owns it...

 

[Againsheila]

Nope, just a parent that objects to schools spending educational dollars on computers for each child in the school when a computer lab makes more cents <yes, I spelled it that way on purpose>. Not everybody wins...the taxpayer loses...plus the child becomes dependent on the computer for everything..also not a good thing. The only true winner is Bill Gates and his company, remember, computer pusher....

I really feel for this generation when the computers go down...

In many ways, we are severely handicapped by our technology. How many young people now know how to use a slide rule? How about a compass and a map? And how can anyone imagine the time when we actually had to be home to answer the phone when it rang?

It's called moving with the times...

We were in a Mexican restaurant one time when the lights went out. We were done with our meal. The waitress tried adding our bill up on a calculator. Three times, she got 3 different numbers. I finally took it from her, added the bill up by hand, added in the sales tax from the chart and gave her the money. She said she couldn't let us go, as she didn't know if the sum was correct. The manager had to come and tell her to let us go. I was getting angrier by the second. I have no problems moving with the times but calculators should come AFTER you learn to do it by hand or in your head. You should know how to use the dewy decimal system before using the computer to look up books at the local library and in truth, they should continue to provide a card catalog for when the power is out. Heck, I can look up what I want faster in the card catalog than on the computer.

We are raising uneducated children who have no idea how to work out an easy arithmetical problem without using a calculator. Do you really think they are getting a good education by moving with the times?

 

[Againsheila]

Donald Trump works 85 hours a week.

First Job: Donald Trump - Forbes.com

Are you willing to work 85 hours a week?

I don't believe a word the guy spews and he's just another rich asshole in a long list of rich assholes.

Neither do I. He's a birfer for a start. Aside from that his father made all the money, and the only reason he didn't go bankrupt was because his debts were so big the banks couldn't afford for him to do so.

I read an in-depth piece on the guy about six or seven years ago (and this might have changed), but he is nowhere near worth as much as he says he is. In fact, he objected one year that Forbes said he was worth a lot less than he said he was. These days he tends to make deals that are a lot less riskier to him than his investors. He always manages to keep naming rights etc, but if you delve a little deeper you'll find a lot of what he 'owns' is very much a minority stake, but he keeps the naming rights of a joint, which gives off the impression he owns it...

He's gone bankrupt several times, just like his father. He declares bankruptcy and then gets other people's money to invest and get back on his feet.

 

[jillian]

^ 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.

It's a mission statement; a topic sentence setting up the enumeration of those things the Constitution considers to be "the general welfare" that follows it.

Considering that you pretend to have gone to law school, one would think you would know something that's so incredibly basic to English composition.

you know, cesspit, unlike the people you come in contact with in your daily life, most of us are not masochists. so you can keep your pretend sadist bit to yourself.

i have never needed to pretend to be anything. i am what i am. you have a problem with that, i'd suggest dialing 1-800-pissoff

as for the constitutional power to act for the general welfare being a mission statement., i look forward to seeing your case law authority for that contention.

tell you what... how about you don't post til you find it.

we'll miss you, i'm sure.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

It's a mission statement; a topic sentence setting up the enumeration of those things the Constitution considers to be "the general welfare" that follows it.

Considering that you pretend to have gone to law school, one would think you would know something that's so incredibly basic to English composition.

you know, cesspit, unlike the people you come in contact with in your daily life, most of us are not masochists. so you can keep your pretend sadist bit to yourself.

i have never needed to pretend to be anything. i am what i am. you have a problem with that, i'd suggest dialing 1-800-pissoff

as for the constitutional power to act for the general welfare being a mission statement., i look forward to seeing your case law authority for that contention.

tell you what... how about you don't post til you find it.

we'll miss you, i'm sure.

Um, she doesn't need to. Didn't you know she is the fountain of all knowledge...

 

[Dr Grump]

We were in a Mexican restaurant one time when the lights went out. We were done with our meal. The waitress tried adding our bill up on a calculator. Three times, she got 3 different numbers. I finally took it from her, added the bill up by hand, added in the sales tax from the chart and gave her the money. She said she couldn't let us go, as she didn't know if the sum was correct. The manager had to come and tell her to let us go. I was getting angrier by the second. I have no problems moving with the times but calculators should come AFTER you learn to do it by hand or in your head. You should know how to use the dewy decimal system before using the computer to look up books at the local library and in truth, they should continue to provide a card catalog for when the power is out. Heck, I can look up what I want faster in the card catalog than on the computer.

We are raising uneducated children who have no idea how to work out an easy arithmetical problem without using a calculator. Do you really think they are getting a good education by moving with the times?

Yes and no. There are things I miss in the past. I remember about five years after I left school they allowed calculators in exams - I was a little annoyed. But sometimes I think that people don't like change because they look at the end game - ie - "well, what if we don't have calculators, or the computer system fails", to which I say, it'll get fixed and we'll always have calculators. Now, if society breaks down to such an extent that we no longer have calculators or computers, I'd suggest learning maths etc is the least of our problems. In saying that, my kids down here have to use the long methods - no calculators allowed at least until high school...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, it does, to anyone who understands reading comprehension and didn't flunk out of high school English.

Article I, Section 8 is basically a paragraph-long run-on sentence. It begins with its topic phrase that sets out the purpose of Congress' powers (to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare) and how it's going to have the ability to achieve that (by the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises). We know that this is a topic sentence - a mission statement for the rest of the paragraph, in essence - by the fact that there IS a rest of the paragraph.

Any time an argument starts with the word "basically" in the first sentence, you know its bullshit.



If they had stopped right there, the Congress would not have the power to regulate commerce or borrow money or enforce intellectual property rights, etc etc. Jeez you're dumb. The power to spend money for the general welfare does not convey any regulatory power, it confers mere spending authority. If you can't understand the difference you're stupid.

The second phrase - To borrow money on the credit of the United States - gives the other way that Congress will have the ability to achieve its purposes, should it be necessary.

Every other phrase after that constitutes (you should excuse the expression) the "common defense and general welfare" the provision of which Congress was given the power to "lay and collect Taxes", etc. Had these phrases not been intended for the specific purpose of defining "common defense and general welfare", there would have been no point in including them in this paragraph/sentence.

The general welfare clause is a separate grant of power, not restricted by the grants of power that follow. See Alexander Hamilton, Justice Story, and the Supreme Court in US v Butler. This is basic Constitutional law, moron.

If that were the case then there would be no point to enumerating powers. Congress could simply do whatever it wanted. That belies the idea of a government of limited powers, which is the basis for Federalism.

I keep saying that, in as many ways as I can think of to try to get through to them, and they just pretend that that whole entire section of the Constitution simply doesn't exist. You ask these chickenshit droolers to explain WHY that Section is so much longer than the only part they acknowledge, and all you hear are crickets.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Nope, just a parent that objects to schools spending educational dollars on computers for each child in the school when a computer lab makes more cents <yes, I spelled it that way on purpose>. Not everybody wins...the taxpayer loses...plus the child becomes dependent on the computer for everything..also not a good thing. The only true winner is Bill Gates and his company, remember, computer pusher....

I really feel for this generation when the computers go down...

In many ways, we are severely handicapped by our technology. How many young people now know how to use a slide rule? How about a compass and a map? And how can anyone imagine the time when we actually had to be home to answer the phone when it rang?

It's called moving with the times...

...and not learning from the past.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's called moving with the times...

...and not learning from the past.[/QUOTE]

We are talking about education here....;o)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, it does, to anyone who understands reading comprehension and didn't flunk out of high school English.

Article I, Section 8 is basically a paragraph-long run-on sentence. It begins with its topic phrase that sets out the purpose of Congress' powers (to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare) and how it's going to have the ability to achieve that (by the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises). We know that this is a topic sentence - a mission statement for the rest of the paragraph, in essence - by the fact that there IS a rest of the paragraph.

Any time an argument starts with the word "basically" in the first sentence, you know its bullshit.



If they had stopped right there, the Congress would not have the power to regulate commerce or borrow money or enforce intellectual property rights, etc etc. Jeez you're dumb. The power to spend money for the general welfare does not convey any regulatory power, it confers mere spending authority. If you can't understand the difference you're stupid.

The general welfare clause is a separate grant of power, not restricted by the grants of power that follow. See Alexander Hamilton, Justice Story, and the Supreme Court in US v Butler. This is basic Constitutional law, moron.

The Founding Fathers were articulate, literate, educated men. There is no reason to believe that they knew less about communicating in written form than the average high school graduate should.

I'm fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father.

To the oversized Sham-Man-type font:

What is the purpose of the semicolon, then?

To lead into all the other parts of that Section that PoohPoo refuses to acknowledge the existence of. It always amazes me how liberals can see clauses and rights that aren't actually there, but are completely blind to words sitting on the page in black and white.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"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)

The same old argument that continues to ignore one major fact; while the income of the wealthiest has grown by nearly 300%, everyone else's has remained stagnant, and this has happened at a time when productivity has increased substantially. Those who provide the labor to increase productivity should see some type of end reward for the work they do. Instead, what we have seen is all of that reward go to a very small percentage of the population. This did not happen because that small percentage of people worked harder or smarter. It happened because the rules of the game were rigged in favor of those very people.

The end result of all this is that it is leading us to a two class society, the haves and the have nots. This could eventually lead us to looking a lot like Mexico, but it won't. What those of you on the right don't understand is that if it gets too far out of control, those who are getting fucked the most will revolt at the polls. Eventually, we could end up with a situation where true socialism takes hold. You should check the history books. The thing that always precedes socialism or communism is a state where the very few become too wealthy and too powerful while the rest of society suffers. It just is not in the best interest of the very wealthy to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, greed can be a terrible thing and lead people to making terrible choices. Protecting the wealthy comes at a cost, and that cost is making certain that the majority of everyone else is reaping some of the benefits. That has nothing to do with making everything equal for everyone, it just means that the little guy is not getting completely fucked.

Amazing to read something so similar to what I have been writing and stating for several decades.

You're amazed that you're not the only flatlining idiot in the country? Don't be. Somehow, your sort always manages to figure out Tab A into Slot B, even if it's the only thing they ever DO understand.

 

[jillian]

It's a mission statement; a topic sentence setting up the enumeration of those things the Constitution considers to be "the general welfare" that follows it.

Considering that you pretend to have gone to law school, one would think you would know something that's so incredibly basic to English composition.

you know, cesspit, unlike the people you come in contact with in your daily life, most of us are not masochists. so you can keep your pretend sadist bit to yourself.

i have never needed to pretend to be anything. i am what i am. you have a problem with that, i'd suggest dialing 1-800-pissoff

as for the constitutional power to act for the general welfare being a mission statement., i look forward to seeing your case law authority for that contention.

tell you what... how about you don't post til you find it.

we'll miss you, i'm sure.

Um, she doesn't need to. Didn't you know she is the fountain of all knowledge...

lol.. a legend in her own mind.

however, in Helvering v Davis, justice cardozo, for the US Supreme Court, says she doesn't know what she's talking about.

I figure i'll go with good ole ben cardozo over cesspit.

 

[Political Junky]

Income inequality is present in Banana Republics, is that really the way we want to go? No doubt, the GOP is pushing for it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Motive or not, that is the result....do you deny it?

categorically, YES.
I believe everyone has goodness in their heart.
And even if there is a profit motive as a side benefit, so what?
Why does profit bother you?
Look, these kids get free computers. The company gets to pay their people to make more of the machines. The company gets to sell more. Everybody wins!
Gosh, you must be bitter.

Nope, just a parent that objects to schools spending educational dollars on computers for each child in the school when a computer lab makes more cents <yes, I spelled it that way on purpose>. Not everybody wins...the taxpayer loses...plus the child becomes dependent on the computer for everything..also not a good thing. The only true winner is Bill Gates and his company, remember, computer pusher....

I really feel for this generation when the computers go down...

On that narrow point I agree. However, Microsoft is DONATING the computers.
Now, how does a DONATION cost anyone anything?
Look, whether you like it or not, computer literacy is imperative if young people looking to get a career started want to even get a fleeting look from an HR manager.
Even on manufacturing environments computer literacy is a basic requirement. Without it, the applicant DOES NOT even get an interview. Period.
Along with computer literacy, people should possess deductive reasoning skills, the ability to think on their feet and the ability to improvise overcome and adapt.