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.
This guy has no idea how the ecomony is suppose to work lol.. It sounds like you didn't go to college. It probably makes him feel good to see "Rich" republicans on tv.
In a market economy there will always be some gap between the top and the bottom. That said, what was wrong with the U.S. economy say from 1950 to about 1970? There was far less inequality than there is today and the middle class was strong and growing.
Families at all earning levels were growing together after World War II but have been growing apart since about the late 1970's. The country’s top earners have pulled a lot further ahead than the middle and lower class. An economy that grows for all segments of society is preferable and more sustainable than one that only benefits the few.
Not since the 1920's has the share of income going to the very top reached such high levels. Recent economic studies have shown that economic mobility in the U.S. is far less than it is in "socialist" Europe. In fact, the United States has a stronger link between parents’ education and a child’s economic, educational and socio-emotional outcomes, studies have found, more pronounced than in France, Germany and Nordic countries, as well as Canada and Australia.
Democrats don't practice what they preach anymore. More and more the dems have become the party of the elitists and wealthy and no longer truly represent the average American blue collar worker. They now brag about being the party of the educated and well to do (progressives). You only have to look at who they were a couple of decades ago and who they are now with elitists like Obama and Hillary. They only care about the average Joe as far as social programs because it keeps a stronghold on the poor as a voting block. The dems stronghold states are those with the highest income and property values like CA, NY, New England.
Republicans on the other hand more and more have become the party of the middle class being more pro religion, pro guns and lower taxes with the vast majority of Americans in the middle heart of America voting republican from red states. A good example of this is Trump. Although he is uber wealthy, he doesn't portray himself as snobish and elitist like Hillary does. He speaks like the common person without the politically correct jargon. Blue collar workers relate to him very well and he employs thousands of them around the world. The only blue collar workers Hillary employs are maids to take care of her homes. Another example is Marco Rubio who is about as middle class as you can get and many people can relate to his financial issues that the dems have tried to use against him.
Reading what is written above, it's clear that the poster has bought the Republican BS, hook, line and sinker. He makes the argument that the Republicans are now the party of the masses. Clearly, he absorbs their rhetoric but doesn't bother to review the POLICIES that they propose or review the people that donate to their elections.
Whenever given the chance, the Republican's main agenda is to lower taxes on the wealthy and pay for those tax-cuts by slashing social benefits that go to the poor and middle-class. One only needs to remember back to December 2010, when Obama was held hostage over extending unemployment benefits -- something that passed with bipartisan support during every previous recession.
Now, the poster above also said, "A good example of this is Trump." Yes, Trump is a good example. While he talks like he is for the average guy, his policies are typical GOP policies -- his tax plan slashes taxes for the wealthy and balloons the deficit to the tune of trillions of dollars.
It's amazing that average Americans are hood-winked by Republicans into thinking they'd get a better shake with them in power.
The problem that I see is that those in charge of the Republican Party know that the beliefs that they spread are completely fallacious, but those myths serves their own self-interest -- to keep taxes on the rich low and keep government out of their hair. But these people's numbers are small, so they need to fund propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation to create false data and spread the message to middle-class conservatives, who are generally stupid enough to swallow their lies. Thus the pro-life conservative-leaning worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.
In a market economy there will always be some gap between the top and the bottom. That said, what was wrong with the U.S. economy say from 1950 to about 1970? There was far less inequality than there is today and the middle class was strong and growing.
Families at all earning levels were growing together after World War II but have been growing apart since about the late 1970's. The country’s top earners have pulled a lot further ahead than the middle and lower class. An economy that grows for all segments of society is preferable and more sustainable than one that only benefits the few.
Not since the 1920's has the share of income going to the very top reached such high levels. Recent economic studies have shown that economic mobility in the U.S. is far less than it is in "socialist" Europe. In fact, the United States has a stronger link between parents’ education and a child’s economic, educational and socio-emotional outcomes, studies have found, more pronounced than in France, Germany and Nordic countries, as well as Canada and Australia.
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 problem I have with the wealth gap isn't that the rich are rich. Its the fact that many of the rich are such GREEDY F**KS that they want EVEN MORE wealth instead of sharing more of it. Namely the more the people at the top make, the more they want to keep that money rather than giving out more in return. Its trickle down economics where the rich are pissing on your head and telling you that its only rain. They keep promising you that if you give them all the benefits and breaks that they will give back to you by sharing the money they make with you, BUT the problem is many wealthy people want to share as little as possible with you instead of giving back a reasonable amount for all you've done for them.
Just look at a big corporation like Walmart that makes about 15 billion dollars a year net. That's ALOT of money don't you think? So what would be wrong with say Walmart giving back 10 billion of that in higher wages to their employees and more taxes to the government etc? 5 billion is still a heck of a profit wouldn't you agree? But wait, shareholders and the stockmarket would absolutely HATE that Walmart 'only' made 5 billion a year and their stock price would drop like a rock or to put it another way, the rich would be unhappy with Walmart only making 5 billion a year. No the rich want Walmart to milk every cent it can and make absolutely as much profit as they can get rather than paying back to the people who help make Walmart successful and paying back into the government that gave them infrastructure that allows Walmart to exist and operate in the first place.
The bottom line is if the rich shared more of their wealth the same people that helped them create it, not only would people be happier, but society in general would be much better off and healthier for it. Yes a wealthy person will be less wealthy for sharing more, but they'll still have more money than they can ever spend in their lifetime, BUT by sharing more they will greatly help the people in the middle and bottom where instead of simply surviving they can now actually save some money or even spend some of it back into the economy and that benefits everyone.
The problem I have with the wealth gap isn't that the rich are rich. Its the fact that many of the rich are such GREEDY F**KS that they want EVEN MORE wealth instead of sharing more of it. Namely the more the people at the top make, the more they want to keep that money rather than giving out more in return. Its trickle down economics where the rich are pissing on your head and telling you that its only rain. They keep promising you that if you give them all the benefits and breaks that they will give back to you by sharing the money they make with you, BUT the problem is many wealthy people want to share as little as possible with you instead of giving back a reasonable amount for all you've done for them.
Just look at a big corporation like Walmart that makes about 15 billion dollars a year net. That's ALOT of money don't you think? So what would be wrong with say Walmart giving back 10 billion of that in higher wages to their employees and more taxes to the government etc? 5 billion is still a heck of a profit wouldn't you agree? But wait, shareholders and the stockmarket would absolutely HATE that Walmart 'only' made 5 billion a year and their stock price would drop like a rock or to put it another way, the rich would be unhappy with Walmart only making 5 billion a year. No the rich want Walmart to milk every cent it can and make absolutely as much profit as they can get rather than paying back to the people who help make Walmart successful and paying back into the government that gave them infrastructure that allows Walmart to exist and operate in the first place.
The bottom line is if the rich shared more of their wealth the same people that helped them create it, not only would people be happier, but society in general would be much better off and healthier for it. Yes a wealthy person will be less wealthy for sharing more, but they'll still have more money than they can ever spend in their lifetime, BUT by sharing more they will greatly help the people in the middle and bottom where instead of simply surviving they can now actually save some money or even spend some of it back into the economy and that benefits everyone.
I am not sure about the Walton family but many of the wealthy are extremely generous.
Walmart profit seems like a lot but that is because there are so many of them and they sell so much (At a low price that does in fact help many poor people.) Walmart's profit margin is actually pretty low.
I am not sure about the Walton family but many of the wealthy are extremely generous.
Walmart profit seems like a lot but that is because there are so many of them and they sell so much (At a low price that does in fact help many poor people.) Walmart's profit margin is actually pretty low.
WalMart's profit margin is about 3-3.5%, about a percent higher than Macy's and Costco.
I find it ironic that conservatives bang the mantra of not wanting the government to provide services because of "dependency" on those programs but they're just fine with people being dependent upon fat-cat charity.
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.
