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.
The people who whine and complain the most about income inequality are also the ones most supportive of illegal immigration...
What nonsense. I think im probably among the largest income inequality guys on CD, and I am against illegal immigration. You're attempting to create a false linkage between beliefs. If you cant debate income inequality, don't try and find some way to paint the people disagreeing with you with another topic entirely.
What nonsense. I think im probably among the largest income inequality guys on CD, and I am against illegal immigration. You're attempting to create a false linkage between beliefs. If you cant debate income inequality, don't try and find some way to paint the people disagreeing with you with another topic entirely.
I was just responding to that little bit of that post. Liberals are the ones most concerned with income inequality and are the most supportive of illegal immigration - period. Obama uses income inequality to get votes for himself and his party (oh, the irony) but his vice president says the illegal minors coming over are "our children" and the rumor is that he may legalize by executive order millions of illegals.
What nonsense. I think im probably among the largest income inequality guys on CD, and I am against illegal immigration. You're attempting to create a false linkage between beliefs. If you cant debate income inequality, don't try and find some way to paint the people disagreeing with you with another topic entirely.
You have to be blind to say that the same people complaining about inequality and the "rich" are not also the people in favor of illegal immigration and amnesty programs? Not that a proponent of one argument must also subscribe to the other.
I still stand by my position. Inequality has and will continue to grow.
It would be interested to see the rate at which the wealthy accumulate wealth, but I don't expect that to really be indicative of anything. GDP tends to grow faster under D presidents so the gains of the wealthy would naturally be higher under a D admin.
I was just responding to that little bit of that post. Liberals are the ones most concerned with income inequality and are the most supportive of illegal immigration - period. Obama uses income inequality to get votes for himself and his party (oh, the irony) but his vice president says the illegal minors coming over are "our children" and the rumor is that he may legalize by executive order millions of illegals.
Actually income inequality has been discussed by a large variety of people, not just liberals. Basic income was considered seriously as far back as Nixon with his proposals, Milton Freidman, and even some libertarians who have came to see it as a replacement for our current system.
I still stand by my position. Inequality has and will continue to grow.
It would be interested to see the rate at which the wealthy accumulate wealth, but I don't expect that to really be indicative of anything. GDP tends to grow faster under D presidents so the gains of the wealthy would naturally be higher under a D admin.
Hmmm....yes and no. large economic and social disruptions can change that, and historically that happens when inequality gets too high.
Actually income inequality has been discussed by a large variety of people, not just liberals. Basic income was considered seriously as far back as Nixon with his proposals, Milton Freidman, and even some libertarians who have came to see it as a replacement for our current system.
And increasingly its not just "liberals" concerned about income inequality. Many people are beginning to realize its a issue that affects everyone.
Most concerned doesn't mean no one else is concerned. As I said earlier in the thread, even I am concerned by it. Not thinking that "basic income" is the answer doesn't mean I don't care.
I still stand by my position. Inequality has and will continue to grow.
It would be interested to see the rate at which the wealthy accumulate wealth, but I don't expect that to really be indicative of anything. GDP tends to grow faster under D presidents so the gains of the wealthy would naturally be higher under a D admin.
It's also quite interesting to look at who is in control of Congress during the periods of faster GDP growth (hint: it's not the Democrats).
The people who whine and complain the most about income inequality are also the ones most supportive of illegal immigration...
I am against illegal immigration so try again.
The ones most supportive of illegal immigration are the politicians on "both sides" since they are doing nothing about it. Obama is part of The Regime in DC as was Bush and so on.
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.
