Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Define poor, then. They have roofs over their heads, better cell phones that a lot of Americans, unlimited money for food, medical is paid for, as well as their education.
How is it that they're now poorer?
That did not take long. You have changed the subject from financial wealth to the physical economy.
Real wealth for the poor has in many areas gone up. However it keeps trending lower in some areas like food quality, work hours etc. We will not get into that.
Financial wealth on the other hand has gone way down in relative terms, and when it comes to financial wealth, relative terms is in absolute terms since financial wealth is a zero sum adjustment. Financial accounting can only move wealth, not create it all on its own. If we print up a dollar for you, everyone else must lose if no supply is added as a result.
So will all of you nits on the left and the right please
stop the endless nonsense conflating real wealth with financial wealth.
You keep bickering about two completely different things like dumb animals.
Now as to you ringwise. Their argument is that someone has a roof over their head, just like you say. However the financials say that someone got it on a credit card. So they are wondering based upon the financial accounting how they will ever repair the roof. Get it yet?
It defies logic because liberals, in general, see life as a zero sum game. The concept of helping one person necessarily hurting another person is fundamental to liberal philosophy.
To a liberal, whenever a rich person gets $1, it is because a poor person lost $1.
Say a rich person earns $10 and a poor person earns $2. Then the government taxes the rich person $2 and gives it to the poor person. Now the rich person has gained $8 and the poor person has gained $4.
The gap between rich and poor has grown because the rich person earned more than the sum total of benefits + earnings for the poor person. But the poor person is not "poorer", the poor person has $4 more than they had before. They are only poorer in comparison to the rich person. And wealth has been transferred from rich to poor.
That is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even while wealth is being transferred from rich to poor.
It revolves around the liberal deleting the pesky "as compared to" part that comes after poorer. They just say "poorer", which allows them to claim that someone who is better off in reality is actually worse off and thus drum up support for their class warfare policies.
(this is, by the way, where the famous liberal "trickle down doesn't trickle down" thing comes from - it does trickle down, it just doesn't all trickle down but the liberals ignore that distinction)
Let me just point out that if democrats were serious about income inequality, they would not be talking about income taxation as a means to correct this. They would focus their attention on capital gains and carried interest income.
The truely wealthy the 1% dont earn incomes subject to income taxation...
All income tax does is slow the ability of any individual from reaching the upper socio-economic strata...
just saying.
The top truly wealthy don't have mortgages either, they own their homes. So why does 0bama call for increased income taxes, and taking away mortgage interest deductions?
If you watch what 0bama does and says, he is not going after the multinational corporate conglomerates, he goes after the small corporations, he wants to eliminate tax deductions that are only available to the independent oil and gas companies, and he is taxing the high income earners, while the truly wealthy are left alone because they are not income earners.
Obama is the friend of the truly wealthy individuals and the older, already established multinational corporations. Warren Buffett and GE love 0bama.
It defies logic because liberals, in general, see life as a zero sum game. The concept of helping one person necessarily hurting another person is fundamental to liberal philosophy.
To a liberal, whenever a rich person gets $1, it is because a poor person lost $1.
Say a rich person earns $10 and a poor person earns $2. Then the government taxes the rich person $2 and gives it to the poor person. Now the rich person has gained $8 and the poor person has gained $4.
The gap between rich and poor has grown because the rich person earned more than the sum total of benefits + earnings for the poor person. But the poor person is not "poorer", the poor person has $4 more than they had before. They are only poorer in comparison to the rich person. And wealth has been transferred from rich to poor.
That is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even while wealth is being transferred from rich to poor.
It revolves around the liberal deleting the pesky "as compared to" part that comes after poorer. They just say "poorer", which allows them to claim that someone who is better off in reality is actually worse off and thus drum up support for their class warfare policies.
I don't think you know what wealth means. If you are getting poorer, then wealth is not being transferred to you. Likewise, if you are getting rich, wealth is not being transferred out of you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
