Well are you?

[Ray From Cleveland]

But I want to address your point about how the wealthy distribute wealth: What would you expect them to do that would make things better?

Honestly, I understand that, given the selfish reality of humans, that most people are going to part with their wealth...unwillingly.

Now, there are certainly examples otherwise. Bill Gates has done extensive work in charities and starting a lot of organizations that benefit communities. Google has made a name for themselves by recruiting the absolute pinnacle of talent in our industry (I'm in tech as well) by really concentrating on their employees, encouraging their growth, and going out of their way to take care of them.

But there are certainly corporations / families that abuse their power. The most obvious example is the Walton family which, if you know even an inkling about them, grossly abuse their absurd wealth and make the brunt of it off the back of minimum wage workers. To decrease the income gap (again, I don't believe in eliminating it, only in giving people a "fair shake" to increase their contributions to society) I would just propose an increase in minimum wage standards to a level where they could get by with little to no governmental assistance if working a full-time position. This, coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits will decrease the burden on the tax paying population, and, by increasing the burden on these workers to be more responsible for themselves, increase incentive to move beyond the lowest end of labor. Additionally, increasing the minimum wage really wouldn't effect many (or any) of the more responsible wealthy individuals...it wouldn't even touch the Gates Foundation...just adversely affect those as the Walton's, who pigeonhole their wealth and grossly abuse the power that it grants. It should also be noted that it wouldn't be likely to remove them from being the vast billionaires that they are...it would just retard their income growth rates which, in a competitive market, should increase incentive to innovate and perhaps restructure allowing them to deliver something even better.

So you know about the Walton's charitable contributions? Care to post a link to them?

Walmart doesn't do anything different than K-Mart, Target, or a number or other stores. Liberals took issue with Walmart because they became a giant in the industry and were non-union.

The liberal scheme was to display their minimum wage workers ignoring all others in the industry. For example, their truck drivers are pretty happy--at least to the many I've had conversations with. Their warehouse workers are doing just fine. Their managers and assistant managers are not complaining all that much.

But liberals alway focus on the cashiers, floor sweepers and shelf stockers as if they were the epitome of the common Walmart worker.

Walmart offers the best chance at promotions than most stores. In fact, there was this one guy that used to load my truck. He told me for extra money, he took a part-time job at Walmart. When they recognized his hard work, the promoted him to part-time assistant manager. They asked him to work full-time and eventually become manager of the store. He contemplated the idea because Walmart had much better healthcare coverage than the job he was at, plus he would be making a little more money.

After our discussion, I went back for a delivery and he was no longer there. Apparently, he took Walmart's offer and joined the team full-time.

As for Bill Gates, he too was the cheapest SOB in the industry. It wasn't until Bill Clinton had his minions fine him a million dollars a day on some phony monopoly charge that forced Gates into being more charitable. After that, he started passing the money around. He knew when it came to politics, it's a pay-to-play operation.

 

[froggy]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

 

[ScienceRocks]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Well, the rich take 90% of the profit and outsource most of the jobs. How the hell can you transfer some of it back to the hard working people without a minimum wage? The super rich have pretty much destroyed our middle class.

 

[froggy]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Well, the rich take 90% of the profit and outsource most of the jobs. How the hell can you transfer some of it back to the hard working people without a minimum wage? The super rich have pretty much destroyed our middle class.

You do the norm and take more away from the middle class just like Obama care did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Liberals never ask where it comes from, just gimme, gimme, gimme. But it's the rich people who are the selfish ones.

 

[Conservative65]

if you're not it's your fault.

Let me see if I have this right. If someone is successful, according to Obama, they didn't do it themselves yet if they aren't better off it's their fault?

 

[Conservative65]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Well, the rich take 90% of the profit and outsource most of the jobs. How the hell can you transfer some of it back to the hard working people without a minimum wage? The super rich have pretty much destroyed our middle class.

If the only wage someone can get due to their skill set is minimum wage, the problem is with them and their lack of skills.

 

[Conservative65]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Liberals never ask where it comes from, just gimme, gimme, gimme. But it's the rich people who are the selfish ones.

I've yet to have a liberal provide a legitimate explanation of how someone who earns what they have wanting to keep more of it is greedy yet someone that didn't earn it expecting those that did to provide for them isn't greedy.

 

[Conservative65]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

I'm always in a festive mood

On your income inequality notion, do you really think that the impoverished, who have little to no power, contribute to it based on the fact that they buy goods and services. Is your suggestion then that they hunt and gather? In a modern society you are literally forced to buy goods and services to survive. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. So then maybe your point is that, by surviving, the bottom creates inequality. Well, what happens to the small bit of wealth that they do spend? It has to go somewhere. And, you realize that where that money goes is dictated by the people in power, the people on top, right? Your fantastical scenario ignores the fact that the wealth could easily be distributed in a slightly more equal fashion and that the people on "top" are the people best placed to enact such a change. When the people on top refuse to distribute the wealth more equally is when we get inequality. Not when the people on bottom exist (survive)...such a notion is probably the most ignorant you have said thus far (which makes it the most humorous).

I'm not sure what your lengthy point has to do with reducing welfare benefits though which was the original topic of discussion.

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

No. If you are born poor, you are at an incredible disadvantage. Some people get breaks, like for instance Donald Trump, who started off life in a wealthy family, whereas others start off with nothing to work with.

Is your answer to take from those who have and simply hand it to someone that doesn't?

 

[Conservative65]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

I'm always in a festive mood

On your income inequality notion, do you really think that the impoverished, who have little to no power, contribute to it based on the fact that they buy goods and services. Is your suggestion then that they hunt and gather? In a modern society you are literally forced to buy goods and services to survive. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. So then maybe your point is that, by surviving, the bottom creates inequality. Well, what happens to the small bit of wealth that they do spend? It has to go somewhere. And, you realize that where that money goes is dictated by the people in power, the people on top, right? Your fantastical scenario ignores the fact that the wealth could easily be distributed in a slightly more equal fashion and that the people on "top" are the people best placed to enact such a change. When the people on top refuse to distribute the wealth more equally is when we get inequality. Not when the people on bottom exist (survive)...such a notion is probably the most ignorant you have said thus far (which makes it the most humorous).

I'm not sure what your lengthy point has to do with reducing welfare benefits though which was the original topic of discussion.

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

No. If you are born poor, you are at an incredible disadvantage. Some people get breaks, like for instance Donald Trump, who started off life in a wealthy family, whereas others start off with nothing to work with.

There are not that many Donald Trumps in our country. Most of our wealthy today did not inherit it, they worked for it.

It's sad how many people think all the rich are rich because they inherited it.

 

[Conservative65]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

And don't pay enough because unions are shot, and pay no more in taxes than the non-rich under GOP tax rates...Great job!

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Liberals never ask where it comes from, just gimme, gimme, gimme. But it's the rich people who are the selfish ones.

I've yet to have a liberal provide a legitimate explanation of how someone who earns what they have wanting to keep more of it is greedy yet someone that didn't earn it expecting those that did to provide for them isn't greedy.

Liberals believe that people with money have it plopped down in their laps. Those evil rich CEO's just sit in their office and practice putts on their astroturf. They know this to be true because they've seen it in movies.

"What is your fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
George Sowell

 

[froggy]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Well, the rich take 90% of the profit and outsource most of the jobs. How the hell can you transfer some of it back to the hard working people without a minimum wage? The super rich have pretty much destroyed our middle class.

we are not going to transfer it back from the rich the middle class are just going to have to pay more cost of living to cover it

 

[initforme]

So you want us to believe ceos have it tough? You have to be kidding....that's funny. You see its the grunters who actually make the company its profits.

 

[Conservative65]

most people can't understand that when minimum wage goes up someone's got to pay for it and normally it's the middle class

Liberals never ask where it comes from, just gimme, gimme, gimme. But it's the rich people who are the selfish ones.

I've yet to have a liberal provide a legitimate explanation of how someone who earns what they have wanting to keep more of it is greedy yet someone that didn't earn it expecting those that did to provide for them isn't greedy.

Liberals believe that people with money have it plopped down in their laps. Those evil rich CEO's just sit in their office and practice putts on their astroturf. They know this to be true because they've seen it in movies.

"What is your fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
George Sowell

They're the same ones that think cars on fire blow up and pulling the little red box with FIRE on it going out a door will make the sprinkler system go off because TV shows portray it that way.

 

[Conservative65]

So you want us to believe ceos have it tough? You have to be kidding....that's funny. You see its the grunters who actually make the company its profits.

You see, many of the grunters are so stupid that if it weren't for the CEOs and those to whom they delegate authority to run the company, they wouldn't know what to do.

 

[initforme]

One must be trained in a highly needed skill....then once hired, use those skills to constantly look for higher pay...use the skills to keep them employer on edge....let them know you are always ready to walk out at an instant.

 

[initforme]

But if the CEO actually had to do an ounce of real work he would shrivel right up....

 

[froggy]

http://www.sterling-resources.com/docs/RolesAndRespCEO.pdf

 

[rightwinger]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

And don't pay enough because unions are shot, and pay no more in taxes than the non-rich under GOP tax rates...Great job!

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other