Reply With Quote
You ing idiot.
Wealth is not a zero sum game.
The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up.
"Why are you people worried about an income gap"
because real household income has been stagnant since St Ronnie got the VRWC ball rolling. and remains stagnant.
economic mobility is decreasing. born poor, stay poor, born rich, stay rich.
While the rich get richer, no trickle-ly down-ly fluid-y for the rest of us, all just another Big VRWC Lie.
You ing idiot.
Wealth is not a zero sum game.
The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up.
If wealth is fluid, why hasn't the gap between the haves and havenots showed inconsistency over the last few decades? If your thesis is true, it shouldn't show a gradual enlargement, but es and dips.
And the whole "Just get more people producing wealth"... right. That's about as useful a solution as, "Let's just get less people committing crime, and then we won't have to worry about spending alot on police."
Don't you think a certain level of income inequality might be undesirable?
I'll assume this is just a broad stroke, and you don't actually mean that every person who is poor is lazy.
Of course it's only and always their fault
I didn't say that and you know it.Of course it's only and always their fault
How about plotting the income gap trend vs. the trend of social welfare programs. They feed each other. The chain must be broken somehow, and punishing those who have is not going to help the have nots. Without promoting an environment to make everyone productive that are capable, we keep a cycle that is destructive to all.
How little faith you have, and changing the argument. What's wrong, have no good argument to the current topic, so you have to attempt to change it?
Sorry, I don't covet other peoples wealth like liberals do. Maybe that's why liberals as a group want to push the ten commandments out of our lives.
God.... I hate it when you act like an ass. You are better than that. We have covered this idea time and time again. You know I have no problem for social programs that help the handicapped, elderly, sick, and others for short term. However, those who can work should.
You can't make this up.
Yes, I seem hypocritical to those who aren't paying attention. However, I stay on point. LnGrrrR knows my viewpoint and creates a statement as if it's otherwise... I consider that being an ass, at least for no reason. It really pisses me off for people to effectively slander my viewpoint.
You can't make this up.
OK, how about it?
You're an idiot. The hypocrisy has nothing to do with you even calling him an ass. You should probably review those commandments, moron.
So you're saying there's no level of income inequality that might be undesirable?
Take these two (admittedly unrealistic) scenarios:
Secnario A: Four people control 99% of the wealth in the United States. Our GDP is 500 billion per year.
Scenario B: 1,000,000 people control 99% of the wealth in the United States. Our GDP is 450 billion per year.
Is A always the better scenario because the US is effectively making "more" money?
Also, I don't give a about the Ten Commandments, and don't see what they have to do with our government, thanks.
... which is exactly what I said. I assumed (correctly) that you didn't really believe that every poor person was lazy, and that some poor people are struck by unfortunate cir stances. Don't see why you'd think me an ass for being correct.
Does that work for all countries, or only the US? Do you think that metric is true universally?
If anyone had the answer to "producing more wealth" on a widescale basis, they'd be the next Jesus.
So, what are you exactly saying when you spout:
"The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up. "
Of course it's only and always [the fault of the poor that they are poor]
That was exactly what you meant, and you know it. You have implied or explicitly stated as much on several occasions.
When you say:
"The poor stay poor because they learn to rely on government instead of picking themselves up. "
There is only one real way to interpret that, sorry. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have been more clear, so don't get all huffy that we can't read your mind.
Revolution? Please.
By whom, the spineless masses afraid of their neighbors who harken back to bygone days that never even existed?
70% of the voting population doesnt even vote. The US is so far from revolution it might as well be another word 70% of the population cant spell.
Unless this country hits 50% unemployment with no social fail-safes to catch them or the military rolls right down your city's streets shooting everything that moves, revolution is a dream of the enlightened few.
Should there be a revolution? Abso- ing-lutely.
Will there be a revolution? Not in my great-grandchildren's lifetime.
ppl seem to forget there is a very thin line between middle class and poverty. All you need to do is lose your job or get a sickness and boom, welcome to poverty.
Then those people need to save their money and invest in the market (take an active part in your economy!). Do we conservatives have to spell it all out for poor people? The options for becoming rich are out there for everyone, put in some elbow grease (and I don't mean wanking it to my stock portfolio LOL).
This may be sarcasm, but it's also true.
Fight back against what?
The Brits are furious: Why aren't we?
Depending on whom you ask, between a quarter- and half-million people marched through the streets of central London last weekend to protest against cuts to public services. Organized by trade unions but attended by people of all backgrounds -- mothers against the closing of childcare centers, students protesting hikes in education fees, pensioners dismayed at the elimination of senior centers and health services -- the demonstration was the largest in the U.K. since a 2003 march against the Iraq War, and one of the largest in British history.
For an American observer, it was an impressive showing that made it hard not to wonder why the only movement with any steam in the U.S. these days is the Tea Party. Why is it that our economic crisis has prompted people to beg for more public sector cuts instead of fewer, for more austerity instead of less? Is a movement against the continued ravaging of state services even possible here?
Of course, there are important political differences between the countries. Because the U.K.'s cuts came as part of a national package of reform, voters had a focus for their ire, as opposed to the U.S., where cuts are scattered across local, state and federal governments. And, of course, it’s easier to organize a nationwide movement in a country that’s geographically smaller than many American states.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...sts/index.html
Save what money? He's telling you their lost their jobs and got sick.
And being 'active part of your economy' can be done in many ways, some of them much more active than putting your money in the market lottery.
Sound market investments are normally fairly long term. Money going there is certainly not as active on the economy as a direct investment or actual commerce.
This is a good question, actually. Many would say that the fact that a great deal of Americans can be fat, lazy, etc etc shows how robust America is.
I can't find the quote, but I believe Nietzche said that the strongest society is perhaps one that can handle the most parasites. (I don't agree with many of his beliefs, but I thought that one rang true.)
If all that it takes to get rich is hard work, Darrin, then are all people who are not rich just not working hard enough?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
