"Income Inequality": So What?

[squeeze berry]

How the hell do you figure?

using a brain

 

[Fordsflylow]

Try this on for size...and think about it good and hard before you come back with some bs snide ass remark. It is after all really simple. Why make it anymore complicated than it may be already. When more people are unemployed means more folks aren't paying as many taxes - rightfully so btw. Or, buying as much, etc. Figure it out man!!

 

[Friends]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

The term "general welfare," like much of the Constitution, is open to various interpretations. I interpret it as an authorization of the welfare state. The Scandinavian countries have generous public sectors of the economy. They also have AAA ratings with Moody's and Standard & Poor's, and less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States.

 

[squeeze berry]

Try this on for size...and think about it good and hard before you come back with some bs snide ass remark. It is after all really simple. Why make it anymore complicated than it may be already. When more people are unemployed means more folks aren't paying as many taxes - rightfully so btw. Or, buying as much, etc. Figure it out man!!

I'm paying plenty of taxes. and spending money on continuing education and the expense for going to work.

Meanwhile someone is benefitting from that. staying home, drinking booze,smoking pot, having unprotected sex, free healthcare, free or subsidized housing.

I'm not buying as much b/c of everyone else's greed. My real income is eroded.

Oil companies, government, overpaid athletes, overpaid CEOs and welfare queens. They can all fuck off..........

 

[Fordsflylow]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

The term "general welfare," like much of the Constitution, is open to various interpretations. I interpret it as an authorization of the welfare state. The Scandinavian countries have generous public sectors of the economy. They also have AAA ratings with Moody's and Standard & Poor's, and less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States.

Facts like these and others matter not to those with an agenda AND/OR have closed minds as well as hate of anything and all. They, on the other hand, love that divide and conquer strategy.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Try this on for size...and think about it good and hard before you come back with some bs snide ass remark. It is after all really simple. Why make it anymore complicated than it may be already. When more people are unemployed means more folks aren't paying as many taxes - rightfully so btw. Or, buying as much, etc. Figure it out man!!

I'm paying plenty of taxes. and spending money on continuing education and the expense for going to work.

Meanwhile someone is benefitting from that. staying home, drinking booze,smoking pot, having unprotected sex, free healthcare, free or subsidized housing.

I'm not buying as much b/c of everyone else's greed. My real income is eroded.

Oil companies, government, overpaid athletes, overpaid CEOs and welfare queens. They can all fuck off..........

You, I, and a lot of folks are paying plenty of taxes and yes that includes the poor. That also includes the poor that weren't poor and are now thanks to this latest bubble that burst in this scam they keep trying to label as capitalism which is really a grand pyramid scheme.

I see from your second sentence that you have a misguided perception of those who are and have become poor. Maybe it goes even deeper than that and includes the color of ones skin first and foremost. If so, consider this. Try to consider if the tables were turned and we whites were the ones who were/are the minority and not treated equally? I know they are not treated equally, it's as obvious as the day is long to those who bother to look, see, listen, etc.. How do you think we whites would be better when we weren't being treated equally?

 

[kwc57]

Said by someone who wasn't held hostage in a restaurant just because their lights went out.

BTW, there was a time we were stuck at the airport for 2 hours because their computers went down, didn't matter that everyone was there and had already checked in, they couldn't let us leave until their computers game back up, oh, and nothing was wrong with that airplane, or the crew.

Oh, there are pros and cons with everything. Thing is, the pros of technology far outweigh the cons....

Considering the biggest con is that a few EMPs will knock us back to the stoneage, I'd say learning the other way FIRST should be the goal of EVERYONE.

Tru dat! In Boy Scouts, we let them use a GPS device........after they learn map and compass. A map and compass woon't go dead on you in the middle of the wilderness. A GPS will.

 

[regent]

The United States has always had programs helping its poor, its disabled and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping industry, businesses and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping all its citizens.
At time the United States has had programs helping foreign nations.

I suspect we have always resented these programs that helped others.

No it has not.this type of help did not start until the 1930's, before if you got help it was through missionaries or donations from people.
Business has recieved help from the government, but it was very limited.

Originally it was the responsiblity of the states that often turned the implementation over to counties. Remember the Country poor houses orphanages etc. In the Great Depression states could not meet the job and the federal government took over the problem. Later, much was turned back to the states, and today both federal and states now care for the indigent.
Government help to industry was somewhat unlimited at times, railroads one example.

 

[kwc57]

The United States has always had programs helping its poor, its disabled and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping industry, businesses and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping all its citizens.
At time the United States has had programs helping foreign nations.

I suspect we have always resented these programs that helped others.

why would anyone resent helping others?

I don't know of anyone who actually resents helping others. I know lots of people who resents the government using their tax dollars to help others instead of using it to run the government. Just about everyone is charitable to one degree or another, but they like to decide when, who and how they practice their charity.

 

[Againsheila]

Try this on for size...and think about it good and hard before you come back with some bs snide ass remark. It is after all really simple. Why make it anymore complicated than it may be already. When more people are unemployed means more folks aren't paying as many taxes - rightfully so btw. Or, buying as much, etc. Figure it out man!!

I'm paying plenty of taxes. and spending money on continuing education and the expense for going to work.

Meanwhile someone is benefitting from that. staying home, drinking booze,smoking pot, having unprotected sex, free healthcare, free or subsidized housing.

I'm not buying as much b/c of everyone else's greed. My real income is eroded.

Oil companies, government, overpaid athletes, overpaid CEOs and welfare queens. They can all fuck off..........

You, I, and a lot of folks are paying plenty of taxes and yes that includes the poor. That also includes the poor that weren't poor and are now thanks to this latest bubble that burst in this scam they keep trying to label as capitalism which is really a grand pyramid scheme.

I see from your second sentence that you have a misguided perception of those who are and have become poor. Maybe it goes even deeper than that and includes the color of ones skin first and foremost. If so, consider this. Try to consider if the tables were turned and we whites were the ones who were/are the minority and not treated equally? I know they are not treated equally, it's as obvious as the day is long to those who bother to look, see, listen, etc.. How do you think we whites would be better when we weren't being treated equally?

If the colors were reversed, my brother would have gotten a job as a dj when he came back from Vietnam and was told to his face that they'd hire him right off if he were a black woman.

Crying racism, now that we have a black president, is a pathetic excuse for anything. More whites are poor than blacks. More whites are on welfare than blacks...etc etc etc

We have tons of programs to help the poor blacks and no so many programs to help the poor whites...

 

[squeeze berry]

Try this on for size...and think about it good and hard before you come back with some bs snide ass remark. It is after all really simple. Why make it anymore complicated than it may be already. When more people are unemployed means more folks aren't paying as many taxes - rightfully so btw. Or, buying as much, etc. Figure it out man!!

I'm paying plenty of taxes. and spending money on continuing education and the expense for going to work.

Meanwhile someone is benefitting from that. staying home, drinking booze,smoking pot, having unprotected sex, free healthcare, free or subsidized housing.

I'm not buying as much b/c of everyone else's greed. My real income is eroded.

Oil companies, government, overpaid athletes, overpaid CEOs and welfare queens. They can all fuck off..........

You, I, and a lot of folks are paying plenty of taxes and yes that includes the poor. That also includes the poor that weren't poor and are now thanks to this latest bubble that burst in this scam they keep trying to label as capitalism which is really a grand pyramid scheme.

I see from your second sentence that you have a misguided perception of those who are and have become poor. Maybe it goes even deeper than that and includes the color of ones skin first and foremost. If so, consider this. Try to consider if the tables were turned and we whites were the ones who were/are the minority and not treated equally? I know they are not treated equally, it's as obvious as the day is long to those who bother to look, see, listen, etc.. How do you think we whites would be better when we weren't being treated equally?

you are the one that brought race into it.

How about proving that blacks are being treated unfairly there Mr Uncle Tim Wise

 

[gallantwarrior]

I went to the LA Art Walk where they were protesting inequality of talent. It opens up a whole new dimension of inequality.

Inequality of talent has been addressed in literature. I always found Kurt Vonnegut's description of a Utopian society where all are made equal, by government mandate...

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

(Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron")

From the movie "Harrison Bergeron" 1995
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSN0X1kDKlA]Harrison Bergeron - YouTube[/ame]

Recently remade "2081"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnmfPwpLreo]Moving Minutes - 2081 - "Harrison Bergeron" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gallantwarrior]

The United States has always had programs helping its poor, its disabled and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping industry, businesses and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping all its citizens.
At time the United States has had programs helping foreign nations.

I suspect we have always resented these programs that helped others.

why would anyone resent helping others?

I don't think anyone resents helping others. Most people, left to their own devices, will aid those less fortunate. Objection is made when some "higher power", in this case, government, confiscates something from one individual or group in order to "help" some other entity. Government decides what to take and how much, and government decides what or who is worthy of receiving what has been taken.

 

[Friends]

I'm paying plenty of taxes. and spending money on continuing education and the expense for going to work.

Meanwhile someone is benefitting from that. staying home, drinking booze,smoking pot, having unprotected sex, free healthcare, free or subsidized housing.

I'm not buying as much b/c of everyone else's greed. My real income is eroded.

Oil companies, government, overpaid athletes, overpaid CEOs and welfare queens. They can all fuck off..........

You seem to be confusing professional welfare recipients with people with good educations and work histories who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and face grim prospects. Many employers refuse to consider a job applicant who is not already employed.

In addition, many professional fields are very specialized. It is not enough to have ten or twenty years of experience, you need years of specific experience: five years of this, three years of that, and so on. Few employers are willing to train anyone, or even to hire people who have retrained themselves at their own expense.

 

[Katzndogz]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

So, let me get this straight. According to YOU that's how the Constitution reads, and then YOU think anyone who happens to be poor should just fend for themselves? Best watch out for what one wishes cause you just might get it. I guarantee if you had the rug pulled out from under you you'd be looking to the govt, that we've all paid taxes too, to help you in your time of need. I believe that is good for the general welfare of this nation.

Yes, I believe the poor should fend for themselves. I've been there, several times, just last year in fact. Poverty is way too comfortable today. We pay people to be poor which makes them poorer yet, and more creatively poor. The worst danger faced by the poor today is that they will die of boredom.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you think Sweden's system is perfect, by all means pack your things and move there.
And do not twist and bend the US Constitution to suit your needs.
Taxation is not intended for liberals to use as a means to get even or to punish.
If you agree with Art 1 Sec 8 you must agree with ALL of it's parts. Not just the ones you believe support your position.

The argument that I should move to Sweden is the argument that I always get when I refute the argument that, "Socialism has always failed in every country where it has been tried."

In Scandinavia what right wing Americans claim does not work works fine.

The U.S. Constitution is vaguely worded and open to various interpretations. Basically it is nothing more than a guide book on how to run a democratic government. During the 1950s the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. There was nothing un Constitutional about that. For most Americans those were good years.

Comparing what works in Sweden and the US is comparing apples and truck tires. Here are just two fairly significant differences that would greatly affect how each country operates. Don't even take into consideration the variables of ethnic composition of the population, or the widely various differences in climate and geography.

Total area:
US: 9,826,675 km2 (3,794,100 sq mi), (varies slightly, depending of source)
Sweden: 173,860 square miles (450,295 sq km)

Population:
US: 313,924,000
Sweden: 9,316,256

 

[Againsheila]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

So, let me get this straight. According to YOU that's how the Constitution reads, and then YOU think anyone who happens to be poor should just fend for themselves? Best watch out for what one wishes cause you just might get it. I guarantee if you had the rug pulled out from under you you'd be looking to the govt, that we've all paid taxes too, to help you in your time of need. I believe that is good for the general welfare of this nation.

Yes, I believe the poor should fend for themselves. I've been there, several times, just last year in fact. Poverty is way too comfortable today. We pay people to be poor which makes them poorer yet, and more creatively poor. The worst danger faced by the poor today is that they will die of boredom.

You really have no clue....

 

[gallantwarrior]

First, I think the degree of economic inequality in the United States is a problem because I perceive of little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income.

Second, I would like to reduce economic inequality using the means that seem to work in Scandinavia. These include steeply progressive taxation, high minimum wage laws, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy.

Third, the following passages in the United States Constitution authorize what I recommend in the previous paragraph:

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

Amendment 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I think you would do better paying for your own Cell Phone, Cable, Subway ride, and Insurance, rather than contribute and encourage further misuse and corruption. Living within ones own means should extend to Government. Sorry to disagree, but when the Power is in your own pocket, wallet, or purse, you are more prudent with how you decide to spend it, compared to an out of control Government, void of Conscience.

When there is less and less $ in the working classes pocket when compared to the upper 10% that idea goes out the window.

If folks cannot afford to pay for their own luxuries, i.e. cable/satellite entertainment, mobile communications, transportation, etc, the providers of those services will begin to experience less profit as fewer people purchase those services. Either the cost will come down or they will go out of business. But as long as the government insists that everyone should be provided with extraneous luxuries, paid for by others who can afford them, the prices will remain high and continue to increase.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

So, let me get this straight. According to YOU that's how the Constitution reads, and then YOU think anyone who happens to be poor should just fend for themselves? Best watch out for what one wishes cause you just might get it. I guarantee if you had the rug pulled out from under you you'd be looking to the govt, that we've all paid taxes too, to help you in your time of need. I believe that is good for the general welfare of this nation.

This is where you just don't get it, junior.
If government keeps taking, taking, taking, more people will have less as resources are exhausted. Extrapolate the current course of government and you might see that eventually there will be no one left to steal from in order to pay for your version of "general welfare".

 

[gallantwarrior]

The United States has always had programs helping its poor, its disabled and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping industry, businesses and so on.
The United States has always had programs helping all its citizens.
At time the United States has had programs helping foreign nations.

I suspect we have always resented these programs that helped others.

why would anyone resent helping others?

My guess would be some need someone to blame for their woes and it is easy for some to blame someone anyone less fortunate.

Really? Doesn't seem that way to me. As a matter-of-fact, your king and messiah is currently running a reelection campaign promoting envy and blame of anyone more fortunate as being the source of misery and woe. Or haven't you been paying attention?