Republicans: why do you ignore the wealth inequality issue?

[sealybobo]

The rich don't work hard.

The poor do.

The 7 Types Of Republican Idiots | Addicting Info

 

[Unkotare]

Republicans see wealthy people as "need to be pampered" Gods. The "Job Creators". The people who should be running the country.

No, we see "them" as people. People who, like everyone else, should rise or fall on their own merits and keep what they earn. democrats see "them" as some B-movie villian that must be punished (symbolically and selectively at least - so many prominent democrats being very wealthy themselves ~ demagogurey anyone?)

 

[thereisnospoon]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Republicans see wealthy people as "need to be pampered" Gods. The "Job Creators". The people who should be running the country.

They think Democrats are jealous of their "Gods", but the truth is, Democrats understand that the super wealth have taken over the country by buying Republican politicians, the best that money can buy. You get someone like Mitt making over $50,000.00 every day and paying a fraction percentage of what I pay. Republicans say I must be jealous, but I only want things to be far. They should pay the same percentage I pay. Anything else is, well, "un American".

"There's no crying in baseball"

 

[peach174]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Republicans see wealthy people as "need to be pampered" Gods. The "Job Creators". The people who should be running the country.

They think Democrats are jealous of their "Gods", but the truth is, Democrats understand that the super wealth have taken over the country by buying Republican politicians, the best that money can buy. You get someone like Mitt making over $50,000.00 every day and paying a fraction percentage of what I pay. Republicans say I must be jealous, but I only want things to be far. They should pay the same percentage I pay. Anything else is, well, "un American".

The Super wealthy have taken over the Dems too. Like George Sorors & Hollywood.

 

[Erand7899]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

The evidence is that the amounts wealthy people make, does not affect you, or me, in any way, shape or fashion. There is no finite amount of wealth that has to be divided up amongst the masses, and that makes the income disparity argument nothing more than a means to class warfare.

BTW, the productivity gains over the last couple of decades has little to do with the labor force, and much to do with mechanization of the workplaces. Machines are doing much of the work, and doing it better and faster that humans could. Robots work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and do not require lunch breaks. They are the work force of the future.

 

[Erand7899]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Republicans see wealthy people as "need to be pampered" Gods. The "Job Creators". The people who should be running the country.

They think Democrats are jealous of their "Gods", but the truth is, Democrats understand that the super wealth have taken over the country by buying Republican politicians, the best that money can buy. You get someone like Mitt making over $50,000.00 every day and paying a fraction percentage of what I pay. Republicans say I must be jealous, but I only want things to be far. They should pay the same percentage I pay. Anything else is, well, "un American".

The Super wealthy have taken over the Dems too. Like George Sorors & Hollywood.

Wealthy people only have a reason to buy politicians because the politicians have something to sell that the wealthy people want. Remove the products, and you remove the graft. Politicians have worked hard to amass political power in Washington DC, because political power is a premium product that brings big financial rewards.

All of you who have aided and abetted that massing of political power in Washington DC, can blame yourselves for the corruption that goes with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans see wealthy people as "need to be pampered" Gods. The "Job Creators". The people who should be running the country.

They think Democrats are jealous of their "Gods", but the truth is, Democrats understand that the super wealth have taken over the country by buying Republican politicians, the best that money can buy. You get someone like Mitt making over $50,000.00 every day and paying a fraction percentage of what I pay. Republicans say I must be jealous, but I only want things to be far. They should pay the same percentage I pay. Anything else is, well, "un American".

The Super wealthy have taken over the Dems too. Like George Sorors & Hollywood.

Wealthy people only have a reason to buy politicians because the politicians have something to sell that the wealthy people want. Remove the products, and you remove the graft. Politicians have worked hard to amass political power in Washington DC, because political power is a premium product that brings big financial rewards.

All of you who have aided and abetted that massing of political power in Washington DC, can blame yourselves for the corruption that goes with it.

And that in and of itself is one inescapable fact that liberals who wish for their side to continue seeking and retaining political power must deal with.
Your post is spot on...I will add to your rep!

 

[UpAndAbout]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Well you are right about one rich person inheriting money - John Kerry's wife. She inherited the Heinz fortune. Think she's gonna give any us po' folk any money? I don't think so.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

Oh Billy, you left wing slut,

Well for starters your god, Islamic Obama Hussein is fouling the whole nation state into a $9 per gallon gas, impoverished 4th world country.

for us who have the cash, we worked for it. It's a system of being able to amass wealth. It's cool. I fucking don't golf so most of my largesse is given away to two christian based women's shelters, in two different countries: The Philippines, Mindanao, and down home in the Yucatan. I also built a Christian based tech school there in Quintana Roo so folks could have a chance to get a better education.

So, you libs as you whine, grovel in your own stool and worship the ides of oppression as a social state, can pound glass.

I hope that is helpful.

Best to you,

Robert

 

[peach174]

It is because of socialism.
Socialism is bleeding the middle class dry.
Middle income has risen but taxes for large government and entitlements takes our earnings from us.
Socialism has always destroyed the middle class.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIHok_OXx-Q]Socialism Destroyed the Middle Class in Every Country - YouTube[/ame]

Even Margaret Thatcher knew it.
When she became Prime Minister, the middle class started thriving again.
Liberals want more poor so that they can stay in power over the people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw&feature=related]Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

It is because of socialism.
Socialism is bleeding the middle class dry.
Middle income has risen but taxes for large government and entitlements takes our earnings from us.
Socialism has always destroyed the middle class.

Socialism Destroyed the Middle Class in Every Country - YouTube

Even Margaret Thatcher knew it.
When she became Prime Minister, the middle class started thriving again.
Liberals want more poor so that they can stay in power over the people.

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - YouTube

I dont know that it is liberals per se who want more poor. Certainly many in government need a lot of people to be kept 'poor' or angry or feeling mistreated or victimized or helpless so that they will keep those politicians and bureaucrats in Washington long enough to provide the politicians and bureacrats with great power, prestige, influence, and immense personal fortunes.

It isn't that a Margaret Thatcher or a Ronald Reagan actually DID so much but that neither saw government as the solution for what the people need. But they helped make the people see their own potential and what they could accomplish and gave them inspiration and belief in themselves again.

Ever since Biblical times and no doubt even before that, the people looked to their king or monarch or pharoah or other all powerful person to provide what they needed. We see the same motif repeated again and again in the Old Testament: "there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." Whenever times got tough, the people were conditioned to look to a powerful figure to save them, and throughout most of the Book of Judges they were clamoring for a king. The prophets tried to tell them they were better off looking to God for their blessings and attending to their own needs, but they demanded a king. So they got a king. Didn't work out really well for them as the common man rarely ever prospers under a strong central government, but oh well.

The Founders intended the United States to be the first nation on Earth to break that cycle. The first nation on Earth in which there would be no king, no monarch, no pharoah, no emperor, no Pope to govern them but the government would secure their unalienable rights and they would then live in freedom to live their lives. It produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But the people now clamor more and more for a king to save them. And in so doing, they don't realize that they could lose it all.

 

[geoff787]

It is because of socialism.
Socialism is bleeding the middle class dry.

And I suppose it's socialism that's been redistributing the nation's wealth northward so dramatically since Reagan, unlike those "socialist" countries in Europe where the disparities are much less than here. I know, I know, the French always retreat blah blah blah. How about Japan where a CEO wouldn't dream of making the kind of money the Robber Barons do here? Or Brazil? Anywhere?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is because of socialism.
Socialism is bleeding the middle class dry.

And I suppose it's socialism that's been redistributing the nation's wealth northward so dramatically since Reagan, unlike those "socialist" countries in Europe where the disparities are much less than here. I know, I know, the French always retreat blah blah blah. How about Japan where a CEO wouldn't dream of making the kind of money the Robber Barons do here? Or Brazil? Anywhere?

But Japan built an economy based on 'equality' rather than productivity and their house of cards has now collapsed as have most of those in Europe. Socialism might feel comforting to many, but it always sooner or later produces a stagnant society in which choices and options become increasingly limited.

One of the differences between socialism and the freedom the Founders intended for us to have is that socialism is brought about by a government that separates 'equality' from productivity. The Founders intended to do away with all concepts that assigns the rights the people will have and forces people into roles and lifestyle they do not choose for themselves. The Founders intended that nobody be restricted by anybody's concept of 'class consciousness' and everybody could aspire to whatever they could dream short of violating the rights of others.

 

[peach174]

Democrats have had programs to help Blacks, but the Blacks have remained in the same ghetto's for 40 or more years.
Their programs have not helped, it has kept the majority of them in poverty.

 

[Some Guy]

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. Played out, sure, but it's true.

Government programs that re-distribute wealth only encourage complacency. So, the only way to really help the poor become not-poor on a long-term basis is encourage them to do what it takes themselves to climb out of it. Of course for many, it's a lot easier to just complain about someone making more than you do and get someone to listen.

America was dubbed "the land of opportunity", not "the land of prosperity" because it's just that: you've got the chance to move up in life if you want it bad enough and are willing to work for it.

 

[geoff787]

The only redistribution of wealth going on here is from the middle class to the hyper rich. It began with the war on the middle class started by the Republicans when Reagan was elected. They (the Hyper rich and their minions (most of whom are R pols)) have been winning this war hands down. Go ahead and say socialism is the cause, but you will be saying socialism is distributing the wealth upward. There is no set of facts you can site to the contrary. So I suppose you're selling the idea that if only we let the Republicans rule exclusively, the money will trickle down to the people who actually do the work in this society instead of the ones who merely profit from them. The Republicans have held the Presidency more often than not since LBJ, and they've had a pretty good piece of the House during that time as well. Why haven't they accomplished anything when we've put them in power? How come the rich are so rich today? It's those damn Democrats. This country is not a socialist country and Obama, Clinton and Carter are no socialists. I am, so I know one when I see them. The three of them don't even qualify as Liberals.

There's something that really gets stuck in my craw, though. I'd be amazed if anyone reading this forum or anyone posting here is rich or ever will be. Most of you/them probably actually work for a living, support families, worry about health insurance and how you're going to make ends meet in your old age. Some are experiencing the old age difficulties right now. Whatever problems you have were not caused by Social Security or Medicare. Yet so many of you endlessly vote against your own self interest, the best interests of your families, friends, cities and states, let alone the best interest of your country. Many of you eat up such nonsense as Obama's a muslim, he went back in time and forged his birth certificate, he goes around the world apologizing for America (Never has) blah blah blah. You listen to pathological liars with glee and spread their lies to other neophytes (most of us) who know little or nothing about what the pols are arguing about or have the time or resources to establish for themselves what the truth is. I would quote one of the greatest thinkers of our time (or any other) Glenn Beck, to wit: "Ruff, ruff, ruff ruff ruff ruff, rrrrrufffff!

 

[geoff787]

By the way, I'd be careful about capitalizing "founders" in such an idolatrous fashion. Some of them were first class A-holes and many were slave holders (the mark of great gentlemen). None of them were women, a deficit we are oh so slowly repairing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It does seem to be true that pubs believe they will someday be rich. Weird but I've seen evidence of that attitude.

They also don't seem to understand that their blind hatred of President Obama actually harms their own families, their own future. It really is like taking poison and expecting someone else to die.

They get their info from lushbo and faux and never look any further for facts. Today, during the president's speech, I checked faux. They didn't have the speech on and yet, after the speech, they had talking heads on saying how bad it was and misquoting the president. IOW, they lied.

But, rw's don't mind this. faux reinforces their hatred for a black man. I really do think that's all it is. As I've said before, the part of this that really pisses me off is that the right would happily take us all over the cliff with them.

 

[freedombecki]

The facts should anger you.

You say any person deserves to keep every cent they make. That would be fine, except that most of the people in the top 5% are not EARNING all of the money that they are MAKING.

Why ignore the evidence?

Wealth And Inequality In America

Productivity and profits are up, yet wages for the middle class haven't changed over the last few decades unlike the 1%

I don't think that I should make more money simply because of the top 5%. I just the think the wealthy should pay a fair tax that would go to benefit programs for lower level workers. In doing so, their hardwork can be fulfilled.

The Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not covet."

The Democrat Party always manages to use the legislative system to take away what Republicans have--money, family homes, properties, inheritances including small businesses intended for family, dead people's money, family farms, and every detail of every day living for regular American citizens, so bound by satisfying complex laws they can't even enjoy life any more.

What a sorry bunch of thieves. They're even considering "Unlawful Presence Waivers" to gain Barack Obama unlawfully waived votes so he can screw America for another 4 years.

Throw the bums out! And their covetous, gimmie-gimmie grovelling congresscritters, too.

 

[geoff787]

Also, sorry about using "site" when I meant "cite". I'm so embarrassed.