“Redistribute the wealth”

[Hiryuu]

View attachment 213469

You kind of have to get into a groove with dannypopo. Think Che Guevara on peyote bender at Disney World, and it will make more sense.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 213469

You kind of have to get into a groove with dannypopo. Think Che Guevara on peyote bender at Disney World, and it will make more sense.

says the persons with only gossip and no arguments.

 

[Darkwind]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

Actually, its you that is dead wrong on this.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Folks, there is no unemployment under Capitalism, only under payment.

And because it properly identifies the actual minimum wage at $0 an hour.

There is no unemployment, Only underpayment.

How much unemployment with zero an hour?

/----/ "How much unemployment with zero an hour?"
View attachment 213469

lol. don't understand the concepts either?

there is no unemployment only underpayment under true capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no unemployment, Only underpayment.

How much unemployment with zero an hour?

It depends on whether or not you consider room and board as payment, then the job would vary with expectations.

how much employment for zero an hour?

How much Unemployment would we have with True capitalists understanding, there is No Unemployment, Only Underpayment.

 

[Hiryuu]

how much employment for zero an hour?

How much Unemployment would we have with True capitalists understanding, there is No Unemployment, Only Underpayment.

If you consider payment for room and board as employment, then the job description as far as expectations and responsibilities is the only variable.

 

[Meister]

Shouldn't you promote your own work ethic

I didn't advocate for Right to Work States.

So what?

You can work at any business that will hire you

Why do we have any poverty, at all?

define poverty

lack of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Someone who is well off, but is unemployed and not receiving compensation falls into your definition of poverty. Got it

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't advocate for Right to Work States.

So what?

You can work at any business that will hire you

Why do we have any poverty, at all?

define poverty

lack of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Someone who is well off, but is unemployed and not receiving compensation falls into your definition of poverty. Got it

they don't need it, if they already have wealth. but, the law is the law.

 

[Meister]

So what?

You can work at any business that will hire you

Why do we have any poverty, at all?

define poverty

lack of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Someone who is well off, but is unemployed and not receiving compensation falls into your definition of poverty. Got it

they don't need it, if they already have wealth. but, the law is the law.

And they are considered impoverish under your definition of poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do we have any poverty, at all?

define poverty

lack of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Someone who is well off, but is unemployed and not receiving compensation falls into your definition of poverty. Got it

they don't need it, if they already have wealth. but, the law is the law.

And they are considered impoverish under your definition of poverty.

only if i have to resort to some sort of special pleading to argue a point; i currently don't have. why?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The lower the minimum wage the higher the level of corporate welfare. The tax payer foots the bill in any scenario.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Tax breaks to billionaires sees the money go to Panama. Tax breaks for the poorest sees the money immediately recycled into the economy.
I struggle with the mindset of people who dont want poorly paid workers to get a bit more.

Yeah instead of natural light they buy Bud light, instead of Kool smokes they buy Newports, instead of meth they buy cocaine




.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The lower the minimum wage the higher the level of corporate welfare. The tax payer foots the bill in any scenario.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Tax breaks to billionaires sees the money go to Panama. Tax breaks for the poorest sees the money immediately recycled into the economy.
I struggle with the mindset of people who dont want poorly paid workers to get a bit more.

We do want them to get more, just not more of our money.

Question: how do we ever teach irresponsible people to be responsible if no matter what they do, we give them a way out?

Have kids you can't afford, we will feed them, give them medical care, and even baby sit for them if you have a job.

Dropped out of school or didn't pay attention; on dope? Have government subsidize your low pay.

Don't feel much like working. Go on our social programs.

Is it any wonder why there are poor people when we keep rewarding them to be poor?

 

[Meister]

define poverty

lack of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Someone who is well off, but is unemployed and not receiving compensation falls into your definition of poverty. Got it

they don't need it, if they already have wealth. but, the law is the law.

And they are considered impoverish under your definition of poverty.

only if i have to resort to some sort of special pleading to argue a point; i currently don't have. why?

We have very little true poverty in America.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

I'm a long way from being a dime a dozen employee. Try six figures.

No ownership does not create wealth in and of itself. An owner may do some productive work that creates wealth, but ownership alone does not.

Hording wealth is not the same thing as creating wealth.

How does one hoard something that was not their possession in the first place?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody is asking for anyone to hand their wealth over for nothing. Workers only want a fair share of the wealth that they create.

Workers don't create wealth, they create pay. Owners create wealth. Wealth is created through investment. Wealth is the reward for such investment like pay is the reward for doing the work.

I agree that profit sharing is a great idea. Perhaps it should be mandated by law for everyone!

No, it should be something the individual finds for themselves or again, use the money they earned to invest in that company.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

They don't give a damn how the government waste the money as long as they use the government as the robber to get even with the people who take risks and make money.

More lies from a blithering fool.

When business people take risks, they loose other people's money. Ask your butt buddy Trump.

Most businesses in this country are small businesses where the owner uses his own money exclusively.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When asked why he paid his employees more than the average, Henry Ford said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy one of his cars.

to you fake capitalism experts, capitalism does not work well if all you have is a few rich people & poor people.

You need the middle class with buying power.

Something Republicans & Trump know nothing about..

I'm middle-class. All I do is work for a living. In fact, in my industry, they are begging Americans to take jobs they refuse to take; to the tune of 30,000 of them. Some companies will even train and license you for free. Still can't find Americans to do these jobs.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Here’s the problem lefties don’t understand because they fundamentally lack the basic understanding on how capitalism works. Under socialism, wealth is a finite thing. There’s no incentive nor basis upon which to create additional resources or wealth, so it’s limited. We saw it time & time again. But under capitalism, there is no finite limit. Competition & ingenuity drive the model. You can go on creating forever because the well never runs dry. This system is a proven winner time & time again. The idea isn’t to redistribute wealth, but rather generate additional wealth. Only one system does that...

But the bulk of the generated wealth eds up the the pockets of the wealthy. Dumbass

Could it be because they are the ones that generated that wealth?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

A distribution is a mathematical & economic term to describe how certain attributes are "distributed" in a given population.

To redistribute the wealth is to change how wealth is "spread out" over the US households.

The last several decades. the redistribution was more wealth toward the richer & less wealth in the middle class.

This needs to be reversed.

You can do it through the tax code. Campaign finance reforms. Etc.

Republicans will never change it. Republivcan voters are too stupid to not vote Republican.

So you double the tax on rich people. How does that help you or I?

All that really does is give government more money to waste. And since we are 20 trillion in debt and still have deficits, the poor or working won't see a dime of it.

Deficits are going up. Ask your buddy Trump, your economy hero. The wealthy are getting wealthier under Trump & the Middle Class is going backwards,. Typical Republicanism & typical stupidity from Republican voters like you.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that the wealthy were not getting wealthier under DumBama and the middle-class were not going backwards? You really live in your own little world, don't you?

And I see you once again deflected. So here's the question again: If we double the tax on the wealthy, how does that help you or me?

Obama worked on changing the tax code. Additional taxes were put into effect that targeted rich people.

You li ve in the world of ignorance. Put down then gun & try picking up a book

Maybe you should take your own advice about reading a book.

HTF do you think that taking more money from people helps them get richer? Explain those dynamics please. DumBama was the most anti-business President of our lives. What made the rich people richer was the feds dumping trillions of dollars in phoney money into the stock market called Quantitive Easing.........look it up sometime.

 

[danielpalos]

lack of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

Someone who is well off, but is unemployed and not receiving compensation falls into your definition of poverty. Got it

they don't need it, if they already have wealth. but, the law is the law.

And they are considered impoverish under your definition of poverty.

only if i have to resort to some sort of special pleading to argue a point; i currently don't have. why?

We have very little true poverty in America.

Recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed is market friendly.