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.
Liberals keep parroting meaningless statistics like "The X richest people own Y% of the wealth". My question is, why do you consider this an issue?
Are you saying that you're poor because someone else is rich? Did you ever consider that all the extra wealth they have is wealth that was produced by them or their company? Them generating wealth doesn't somehow make you less wealthy.
Maybe it's time to get over your envy of others' success. It sounds like babies crying about how other children have more toys than them.
The part I love is when they boast about the wealthiest left-wing Democrats. They always reak of hypocrisy.
So let's take all of the wealth, equally distribute it among everyone, and set everybody loose. Give it a few years, and we'll be having the same argument again because majority of the people would blow their money on material possessions rather than investment opportunities to guarantee continuous income.
Then we can give them more.....that's what we did with those who made bad investments and had them blow up in their faces.
So let's take all of the wealth, equally distribute it among everyone, and set everybody loose. Give it a few years, and we'll be having the same argument again because majority of the people would blow their money on material possessions rather than investment opportunities to guarantee continuous income.
That's the reductio ad absurdum argument -- taking the argument to the absurd extreme to prove a lesser argument is false.
Real life is not an Ayn Rand novel. What you are arguing is that the policies that the U.S. had from the 1940s to the 1970s would create economic disaster. Yet, those policies, namely, high marginal taxation, pro-labor laws and a high minimum wage, not only DIDN'T create disaster, they created the greatest growth in the middle class in history.
I don't see why repeating those same policies would now be disastrous. I also don't understand why you need to defend the ultra-rich, who have lobbyists and lawyers fending off anyone trying to topple their coveted positions.
So we should raise everyone's salary across the board? That would be fair, right? I'm just looking for the fair option where no one would complain. Somehow, I don't think that option exists.
There is and its called anti-trust legislation, and the way the laws have changed over the last 30 years to weaken it. The concentration of wealth and corporate power and its drain on most of the states.
The part I love is when they boast about the wealthiest left-wing Democrats. They always reak of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Suppose that you're a rich financier, rich politician or rich TV host like Bill Maher, who advocates higher taxes on high incomes and a stronger social safety net, but you yourself earn enough from various sources that you will pay some of those higher taxes and are unlikely to rely on that stronger safety net. You look at that combination of personal and political positions and cry "Hypocrisy!"
So to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: supporting policies that are to your personal financial disadvantage isn't hypocrisy, it's civic virtue!
Most "poor" people in America have a car, air conditioner, tv, refrigerator, stove, microwave oven, cell phone, dvd player and many other material goods that are only available to affluent people in truly poor countries. Poverty in America is overstated and political.
A few questions for you:
1) do you know 'most of the poor people in the US'?
2) If not what is your source for that curious claim?
Thanks in advance
That's the reductio ad absurdum argument -- taking the argument to the absurd extreme to prove a lesser argument is false.
Real life is not an Ayn Rand novel. What you are arguing is that the policies that the U.S. had from the 1940s to the 1970s would create economic disaster. Yet, those policies, namely, high marginal taxation, pro-labor laws and a high minimum wage, not only DIDN'T create disaster, they created the greatest growth in the middle class in history.
I don't see why repeating those same policies would now be disastrous. I also don't understand why you need to defend the ultra-rich, who have lobbyists and lawyers fending off anyone trying to topple their coveted positions.
The late 40's through the 70's had very, very little to do with policy, but rather with an abundance of good jobs. Yes, one can argue that the policies that have allowed the jobs to leave have hurt but I don't think that is where you are going.
That's the reductio ad absurdum argument -- taking the argument to the absurd extreme to prove a lesser argument is false.
Real life is not an Ayn Rand novel. What you are arguing is that the policies that the U.S. had from the 1940s to the 1970s would create economic disaster. Yet, those policies, namely, high marginal taxation, pro-labor laws and a high minimum wage, not only DIDN'T create disaster, they created the greatest growth in the middle class in history.
I don't see why repeating those same policies would now be disastrous. I also don't understand why you need to defend the ultra-rich, who have lobbyists and lawyers fending off anyone trying to topple their coveted positions.
It's not absurd, because there are multiple examples of people suddenly inheriting a large amount of money and then practically breaking their necks to give it all back. How many people do you know now that blow money on silly material possessions every chance they get? How come Black Friday is one of the most important days of the year? People literally clamor over and trample each other to blow money on (usually) useless items that don't hold any kind of value, like 70" flat screens and the new hover boards or whatever those things are called. Or tax return season, using that money as a down payment to buy that new car that drops half in value when they drive off the lot.
I'm not defending the ultra-rich, but they ultra-rich aren't there for no reason. They know how to play the game, and they make different choices in life than the average person. Rather than always complain about someone else, why can't others make something happen? Lack of determination and laziness is what is usually boils down to.
Pfizer just sold themselves to the Irish, so that hundreds of million, and eventually billions of future Pfizer earnings will be untaxable by the greedy U.S. General Electric, no stranger to maneuvering around IRS worksheets just tried to sell themselves to Sweden to accomplish the same thing as Pfizer. They have been denied (for now). If America's Middle Class is o.k. with running a First World Nuclear Superpower on the earnings of Target cashiers, who am I. But I can observe that in the long term such shortsightedness will fail. When America is no longer livable the 1% will simply live full time in the European and South American cities they already live in part time (as a tax dodge). What will the rest of us do?
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.
