Unequal distribution of wealth

[georgephillip]

These fucking idiots who complain about govt workers and their salaries are just haters, they ignore facts, facts like the wages of govt employees are used to purchase goods and services in the private sector which pays the salaries of private sector workers, cut their wages you cut your own, simple economics 101.

They also tend to ignore the fact that without government there would be no courts, public safety and money.

Straw man argument.
Those are essential functions of government. Most sane people do not even discuss that as part of the issue.
The point is government should be performing ONLY essential functions.
Government workers wages and benefits far outstrip their contribution to the private sector.
No. Slashing government employment cuts the expense to the private sector.
In no country does massive government employment translate to a healthy economy.
There are millions of federal pensioners who are essentially being paid to NOT work.
Why? Why are government workers so special that they deserve a paycheck for not working. Private sector workers don;t get that....Why should public sector workers?. And don't reply with "they earned it". No, they did not.
Another thing that government workers can do that no one in the private sector worker can do: Bank unlimited sick time and vacation time. That's bullshit. In the private sector you "use it or lose it".
The pensions and benefits bestowed upon government workers are no longer sustainable.
This has nothing to do with envy. It is about common sense.
No way should those who work in service to the public get a better deal than those they serve. It's insulting for a taxpayer who works every day, does things the right way has to watch a person whom HE pays, get to be paid an average of 33% more, get far better benefits and reach retirement age an average of 10 years earlier. AND have to pay that person.

"A report released today by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has revealed the names of 18 former and current directors from Federal Reserve Banks who directly benefited from financial bailouts after the 2008 crisis.

"The Reserve directors worked in banks and corporations that collectively received over $4 trillion in bailout money allocated by the Federal Reserve.

"Essentially, action taken by the Federal Reserve overwhelmingly benefited directors of the Federal Reserve, above other beneficiaries. The report titled Jamie Dimon Is Not Alone names the top 18 Reserve directors including Jamie Dimon who received the largest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance during the crisis."

This is what most sane people blame for the Great Recession we've just lived through and the Greater Depression we are all waiting for. If it makes you feel better to blame pensioners who have earned their retirements, go ahead--Jamie will thank you and then steal whatever retirement you have coming.

Federal Reserve Directors' Banks and Businesses Took $4 Trillion in Bailouts: Report | Common Dreams

 

[MikeK]

Well, good night to all. Just as a passing shot, I'd lik eto say that it's obvious that none of the people (who I've been debating), appear to have any knowledge of manufacturing or the realities of economics or the importance of real production.

You're all people who desparately cling to unfair wealth distribution, because if wealth distribution was fair you'd all be dirt poor!

If wealth distribution was fair there would be no billionaires in America but lots of millionaires and very little poverty.

You are half right. There would be no billionaries, we would just be all poor.

That logically implies equitable (fair) distribution of our Nation's wealth resources, such as existed between the 40s and 80s, would have a negative effect. Is that really what you believe? Or are you simply parroting the kind of corporatist propaganda put forth by such multi-millionaire media personalities as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, at al?

Please try to understand that wealth is good but excessive wealth is not. It is the manifest product of greed and it equates to aristocracy -- which is opposed to the first principle of democracy.

Don't allow yourself to be seduced by right-wing propaganda. Unless you are among the super-rich you are working against your own interests.

 

[Contumacious]

That logically implies equitable (fair) distribution of our Nation's wealth resources,

No, that logically implies well motivated individuals who do not like being poor.

Please try to understand that wealth is good but excessive wealth is not.

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!

.

 

[Moonglow]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Didn't bother early americans that took land from the natives

 

[tjvh]

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Didn't bother early americans that took land from the natives

I'm part Native American, are you going to offer me up a potion of your land? I didn't think so.

 

[The T]

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

Didn't bother early americans that took land from the natives

I'm part Native American, are you going to offer me up a potion of your land? I didn't think so.

MoonDerp STOLE it from you...I think he should give it back.

/Tongue-in-cheek

 

[georgephillip]

That logically implies equitable (fair) distribution of our Nation's wealth resources,

No, that logically implies well motivated individuals who do not like being poor.

Please try to understand that wealth is good but excessive wealth is not.

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!

.

The same "fucketh" who decide how fast the real parasites can drive their Ferrari's on public roads.

Motivation doesn't compensate for the absence of a level playing field.
The rich perpetuate inequality the same way they institutionalize corruption.
They don't exist without war profits and interest bearing debt.

 

[Contumacious]

That logically implies equitable (fair) distribution of our Nation's wealth resources,

No, that logically implies well motivated individuals who do not like being poor.

Please try to understand that wealth is good but excessive wealth is not.

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!

.

The same "fucketh" who decide how fast the real parasites can drive their Ferrari's on public roads.

Motivation doesn't compensate for the absence of a level playing field.
The rich perpetuate inequality the same way they institutionalize corruption.
They don't exist without war profits and interest bearing debt.

Well the fascists and the socialists love to control the government, When the wrong guys drive the Ferraris they squeal like stuck hogs.

War profiteerrs and corporatism are the product of fascism and socialism.

When everything fails try, do try, CAPITALISM.

.

.

 

[georgephillip]

No, that logically implies well motivated individuals who do not like being poor.



And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!

.

The same "fucketh" who decide how fast the real parasites can drive their Ferrari's on public roads.

Motivation doesn't compensate for the absence of a level playing field.
The rich perpetuate inequality the same way they institutionalize corruption.
They don't exist without war profits and interest bearing debt.

Well the fascists and the socialists love to control the government, When the wrong guys drive the Ferraris they squeal like stuck hogs.

War profiteerrs and corporatism are the product of fascism and socialism.

When everything fails try, do try, CAPITALISM.

.

.

Do you consider the du Ponts fascists or socialists or capitalists?

Let's ask Smedley:

"Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year.

"It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918.

"Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent."

War is a Racket

 

[Contumacious]

The same "fucketh" who decide how fast the real parasites can drive their Ferrari's on public roads.

Motivation doesn't compensate for the absence of a level playing field.
The rich perpetuate inequality the same way they institutionalize corruption.
They don't exist without war profits and interest bearing debt.

Well the fascists and the socialists love to control the government, When the wrong guys drive the Ferraris they squeal like stuck hogs.

War profiteerrs and corporatism are the product of fascism and socialism.

When everything fails try, do try, CAPITALISM.

.

.

Do you consider the du Ponts fascists or socialists or capitalists?

Let's ask Smedley:

"Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year.

"It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918.

"Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent."

War is a Racket

There you go, you are getting the picture.

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC was absolutely correct.

.

.

 

[MikeK]

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!.

Excessive wealth is easy to define.

Wealth is the capacity to afford one or two finely furnished homes, one or more fine cars, several university educations, the best medical coverage, a fine wardrobe, sufficient financial resources to ensure a secure, comfortable future and to enable reasonably luxurious recreation. The compulsion to continue hoarding assets beyond that capacity is indeed excessive. If you wish to place a figure on it just calculate how much it would cost to achieve that level of wealth. My guess is somewhere around twenty million dollars.

Not long ago the average corporate CEO earned ten times that of the highest paid employee. Today that average has increased tenfold. It is not uncommon for present-day CEOs to "earn" bonuses in the hundreds of millions while the salaries, benefits and pensions of their employees are diminishing. That is one readily documentable example of excessive wealth.

I wish to add that, while it is understandable why someone who is excessively wealthy would defend the emerging American neo-aristocracy there is no shortage of ordinary working class minions, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in or any hope of ever being out of debt, who vociferously defend a class of Americans who regard them as something equal to insects.

Such is the power of indoctrination via media-borne propaganda.

 

[Contumacious]

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!.

Excessive wealth is easy to define.

Wealth is the capacity to afford one or two finely furnished homes, one or more fine cars, several university educations, the best medical coverage, a fine wardrobe, sufficient financial resources to ensure a secure, comfortable future and to enable reasonably luxurious recreation. The compulsion to continue hoarding assets beyond that capacity is indeed excessive. If you wish to place a figure on it just calculate how much it would cost to achieve that level of wealth. My guess is somewhere around twenty million dollars.

Not long ago the average corporate CEO earned ten times that of the highest paid employee. Today that average has increased tenfold. It is not uncommon for present-day CEOs to "earn" bonuses in the hundreds of millions while the salaries, benefits and pensions of their employees are diminishing. That is one readily documentable example of excessive wealth.

I wish to add that, while it is understandable why someone who is excessively wealthy would defend the emerging American neo-aristocracy there is no shortage of ordinary working class minions, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in or any hope of ever being out of debt, who vociferously defend a class of Americans who regard them as something equal to insects.

Such is the power of indoctrination via media-borne propaganda.

I see, so if I defend Joe Blow's right to keep his property because I have no evidence that he stole through violence or fraud , then it is because I am indoctrinated?!?!?!

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They also tend to ignore the fact that without government there would be no courts, public safety and money.

No see, that's why libeals think of communism as socialist utopia. The conservatives call it anarchy, because we do want SOME government, VERY BASIC government.
Utopian socialism = anarchy (positive view is from liberals, negative view from conservatives)
Liberals are the ones that want huge government, then when you as mention the USSR or cuba, they say communism hasnt been tried, because they think it is socialist utopia (ie no government, ie anarchy). That's why we laugh at socialist utopia, it's NOT POSSIBLE= and if it did happen, it would be CHAOS (ie no courts, public saftey or money as you point out)
And thats why commies and anarchists get together, because they both believe in the same thing for different reasons.

so to recap. Liberals love utopian socialism, conservatives dont and call it anarchy (because we realize we need SOME government)

Liberals understand how the Public creates the infrastructure, public education, and the regulations for the protection of health and justice that makes the Private, especially private PROFIT possible.

"Conservatives endorse massive fraud, primarily through the Pentagon, because the Decider scares them with fabels about terrorists, anarchists, and communists coming from the USSR and Cuba for their guns and bibles.

"VERY BASIC government begins with the principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public business, something conservatives often confuse with anarchy.

9/11 is a fable?
Look, you go one believing your nonsense if it makes you feel better.
None of it is true though.
Government is limited by the US Constitution. It should all go back to that.
Government should perform essential functions ONLY.
That would eliminate the need for approx HALF of the existing federal departments and of course half the number of federal workers. I think that is a great idea.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!.

Excessive wealth is easy to define.

Wealth is the capacity to afford one or two finely furnished homes, one or more fine cars, several university educations, the best medical coverage, a fine wardrobe, sufficient financial resources to ensure a secure, comfortable future and to enable reasonably luxurious recreation. The compulsion to continue hoarding assets beyond that capacity is indeed excessive. If you wish to place a figure on it just calculate how much it would cost to achieve that level of wealth. My guess is somewhere around twenty million dollars.

Not long ago the average corporate CEO earned ten times that of the highest paid employee. Today that average has increased tenfold. It is not uncommon for present-day CEOs to "earn" bonuses in the hundreds of millions while the salaries, benefits and pensions of their employees are diminishing. That is one readily documentable example of excessive wealth.

I wish to add that, while it is understandable why someone who is excessively wealthy would defend the emerging American neo-aristocracy there is no shortage of ordinary working class minions, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in or any hope of ever being out of debt, who vociferously defend a class of Americans who regard them as something equal to insects.

Such is the power of indoctrination via media-borne propaganda.

Your so called definition not one at all. It is YOUR OPINION.
Hope of ever being out of debt? Umm, those that impulsively buy things for which they do have the funds or purchase homes they really cannot afford but just wanted a big house, have no one to blame but themselves for their predicament. We're talking about those who've suffered family tragedy, accidents, illnesses or through no fault of their own lost their means of income....They are the ones who deserve help. First from the people closest to them. Then their community or church. Lastly the taxpayers.
There are two kinds of "no pot to piss in" type people exclusive of the examples in the last sentence above...
Those who live far beyond their means. Too many toys. Too much house, Credit card freaks.
And those who earn meager incomes but refuse to improve their skill sets to increase their chances at a better paying job. These people are typified by the single wide mobile home they own or rent with the 60" flat panel tv and the $40,000 dually pickup truck. Meanwhile the kids are dressed in clothes from Good Will. The family is behind on their every bill. They complain when the utility company threatens to stop service or the day care the kids attend wants to throw out the kids because the bill is two months behind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And who the fucketh defines "excessive wealth? By any chance is it those who engage in excessive parasitism?!?!?!.

Excessive wealth is easy to define.

Wealth is the capacity to afford one or two finely furnished homes, one or more fine cars, several university educations, the best medical coverage, a fine wardrobe, sufficient financial resources to ensure a secure, comfortable future and to enable reasonably luxurious recreation. The compulsion to continue hoarding assets beyond that capacity is indeed excessive. If you wish to place a figure on it just calculate how much it would cost to achieve that level of wealth. My guess is somewhere around twenty million dollars.

Not long ago the average corporate CEO earned ten times that of the highest paid employee. Today that average has increased tenfold. It is not uncommon for present-day CEOs to "earn" bonuses in the hundreds of millions while the salaries, benefits and pensions of their employees are diminishing. That is one readily documentable example of excessive wealth.

I wish to add that, while it is understandable why someone who is excessively wealthy would defend the emerging American neo-aristocracy there is no shortage of ordinary working class minions, many of whom haven't a pot to piss in or any hope of ever being out of debt, who vociferously defend a class of Americans who regard them as something equal to insects.

Such is the power of indoctrination via media-borne propaganda.

What a lot of words and hot air to say, "Excessive wealth is defined as 'more money than liberals think you should have'." There, see how fast that was?

 

[chanel]

According to that definition, half the people on this board would be worth 20 MILLION DOLLARS! Good Lord. Liberal math is blows my mind.

 

[editec]

Extreme income mal-distribution leads to a stagnanting economy.

That is why it is bad.

duh!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Extreme income mal-distribution leads to a stagnanting economy.

That is why it is bad.

duh!

When will you libs get it through your earth's crust thick skulls that inome is NOT distributed. Neither is wealth.

 

[tjvh]

Didn't bother early americans that took land from the natives

I'm part Native American, are you going to offer me up a potion of your land? I didn't think so.

MoonDerp STOLE it from you...I think he should give it back.

/Tongue-in-cheek

I'm still waiting...

 

[bripat9643]

Extreme income mal-distribution leads to a stagnanting economy.

That is why it is bad.

duh!

There is no formal definition of "extreme income mal-distribution' and not a shred of evidence that it ever caused any economy to stagnate.

Duh!