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.
Well he does agree with those kids who have made themselves such useful idiots and that is what they want to see. This lout is not even funny in his idiocy.
Well he does agree with those kids who have made themselves such useful idiots and that is what they want to see. This lout is not even funny in his idiocy.
I think it is odd that liberals want wealth redistribution... except for their wealth... I think it even funnier when the ones who benefit from wealth redistribution are the wealthy liberals whose industry banks on the poor liberals buying more of their stuff... funny... I don't see liberals imposing a "Wealth" tax in which you are tax on what you HAVE rather than what you earn... I guess its difficult for them to earn their wealth, they rather someone steal it so they can have MORE... ironic...
The entire term "Redistribution of the wealth" is misleading to the max. In any society outside that of the cave dwellers there is wealth distribution of some sort or another. Without that concept civilization is not possible. Human beings remind me a lot of the way dogs are. Some big and agressive dogs don't believe in sharing and guess what? They get all the goodies and the rest get none. That is a system without any wealth sharing. In the early days of the industrial revolution when wealth distribution was anathema to the owners at the time, the people had nothing. In England at the time when they were by far the richest country in the world they were pulling 3 year olds up and down chimneys to clean out the flues. People started working at 5 years old for crumbs, worked hard all of their lives and died before age 30 worn to the bone. At this same time a man who worked but did not make enough to feed himself was hung if caught stealing a loaf of bread. Anyone who is opposed to a fair sharing of the nations wealth and paying a man properly for his days labour is at the height of selfishness,misery, foolishness, shortsightedness, anti democratic, self serving and just plain old fashioned stupidity.
I can not think of one single society in history that survived for very long when the majority of the people were wage slaves. They either rebelled and killed all owners or the society just disintigrated into anarchy and chaos. For you people out ther who are opposed to "sharing the wealth" get ready because if you won't share it then some one will take it from you.
lucknow is absolutely right. And for those who are more tuned into the economic argument, consider this: If people don't have any money to spend, guess what? The economy tanks even further. Is that what you want? Our economy depends on consumption. Wealth must be redistributed to a certain extent in order to have a civil society and a healthy market economy.
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.
Paul Krugman says, Get that wealth redistributed.
