Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

I call bull crap! It's Democratic policies that pretend we're not part of a global economy today.

(10-31-2014 03:50 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 03:03 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Good. Get a job, loser. Tired of paying for yo lazy asss.

Course I'd bet, not looking, that this is no cut at all. Simply a reduction of some pittance % in the rate of growth. Someone prove me wrong. Please.

I'll never think of my fellow citizens as losers, just as fellow human beings...of course, I don't hate the poor like some do.

Yea, me neither. I only wish they weren't poor. I further wish so many of them didn't, indeed, hate themselves in so many instances. Poor choices, lack of motivation, a variety of addictions and so on and so forth.

We know what causes and/or often predicts poverty, it's a shame they hate themselves so often.

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

Laughably silly. Remind us all again- when has the income gap widened the fastest and the most?

You leftists wanna give them juuuust enough to keep them quiet and on the plantation, while the limousine liberals laugh all the way from their chablis blush cocktail parties to the bank.

50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars tells the true story. But nice try.

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

In a capitalist system, there's supposed to be income inequality.

(10-31-2014 07:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

In a capitalist system, there's supposed to be income inequality.

Okay then. How much?

(08-28-2014 08:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How dare the US Government help it's poor citizens. That's 46 million out of what, 335 million Americans?

Good to see our government help it's poor...most of these people work and have kids.

Only a lefty would view such a number as a good thing.

(10-31-2014 08:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 08:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How dare the US Government help it's poor citizens. That's 46 million out of what, 335 million Americans?

Good to see our government help it's poor...most of these people work and have kids.

Only a lefty would view such a number as a good thing.

I want every single poor American that needs food stamps to get them...I don't care if that means more or less sign ups.

It's about living people, not numbers.

(10-31-2014 08:15 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 07:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

In a capitalist system, there's supposed to be income inequality.

Okay then. How much?

That's up to the marketplace .... supply and demand. And there should be no artificial interference (distortions) placed on the system by government and/or unions.

Your pay should not depend on how well connected you are to the political elites.

(10-31-2014 02:50 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 08:26 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How dare the US Government help it's poor citizens. That's 46 million out of what, 335 million Americans?

Good to see our government help it's poor...most of these people work and have kids.

Work? Not where I'm from.....

A lot of them don't in Memphis either.

(10-31-2014 03:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You're arguing about the trees and ignoring the forest... and frankly it appears intentional. Really no point in that.

This is pretty much what he does in every thread.

He's delusional enough to think everyone doesn't see it every single time.

(10-31-2014 08:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:15 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 07:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

In a capitalist system, there's supposed to be income inequality.

Okay then. How much?

That's up to the marketplace .... supply and demand. And there should be no artificial interference (distortions) placed on the system by government and/or unions.

Your pay should not depend on how well connected you are to the political elites.

You're dodging the question since free markets only exist in fairy tales. So I'll ask again, how much income inequality should we have in our American society?

Covetousness is a sin.

(10-31-2014 08:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Covetousness is a sin.

So is greed.

(10-31-2014 08:59 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Covetousness is a sin.

So is greed.

I'm not greedy and I'm not rich. I just don't begrudge those who have more than I do, and don't believe they're keeping me from making more for myself.

(10-31-2014 08:53 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:15 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 07:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 04:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Never accept a right-wing talking point at face value. Our nation is wealthier today than it has ever been, yet more and more people need assistance to make ends meet. That's due to income inequality. Right-wing policies only exacerbate inequality. Even if you deny that truth, nobody would disagree with the fact that the right-wing in America has no intentions to enact policies that are explicitly aimed as reducing income inequality. So I find it incredibly hypocritical that right-wingers moan and groan about how many people are utilizing some type of public assistance while those same right-winger champion policies that push more and more people towards needing public assistance.

In a capitalist system, there's supposed to be income inequality.

Okay then. How much?

That's up to the marketplace .... supply and demand. And there should be no artificial interference (distortions) placed on the system by government and/or unions.

Your pay should not depend on how well connected you are to the political elites.

You're dodging the question since free markets only exist in fairy tales. So I'll ask again, how much income inequality should we have in our American society?

The question is are you going to pretend that your Democratic elites aren't just as culpable in the "income inequality" you hate so much? C'mon, you know that there will always be income inequality - even in communist countries there are haves and have nots.

Truthfully, there probably is a segment of society that makes more than they're actually worth, but do you honestly trust the government to "even the score"? Part of the problem now is that the government picking winners and losers favors those that have the money and power now.

(10-31-2014 08:53 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  You're dodging the question since free markets only exist in fairy tales. So I'll ask again, how much income inequality should we have in our American society?

And you're dodging the fact that income equality under Obama has grown by leaps and bounds. He has been as good for the rich and as bad for the poor as any President in History... Yet you blame only the right? Silly, really.

Income inequality is a function of risk vs reward. "workers' take no market risk... thus their reward is virtually nothing. Republicans constantly encourage workers, regardless of party to become 'owners'... to think like rich people so that they can become rich people... and democrats keep them thinking like workers so that they will remain workers.

Obama pushed hundreds of billions into the pockets of the wealthy amd has done virtually nothing for the poor, except to make sure that they remain at the whims of the government for decades.

There is absolutely no way to answer your question, and the fact that you ask it makes you look unintelligent. The rate of return on risk is always going to be higher than the rate of return on security... and they wealthy have money to risk (and Obama gave them more). The wealth gap is therefore merely a function of time. The sooner people start thinking and acting like owners, the faster their wealth will grow.

Our tax policy, including estate taxes actually makes the wealthy, wealthier... and encourages those /approaching/ being wealthy to sell out to the already wealthy. It's how Democrat Buffet made his fortune

You know this, but it doesn't suit your political agenda, so you focus on meaningless things like 'how big the income equality should be'.

Apparently Democrats don't yet think it is big enough

(10-31-2014 09:09 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:53 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:47 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:15 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 07:53 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  In a capitalist system, there's supposed to be income inequality.

Okay then. How much?

That's up to the marketplace .... supply and demand. And there should be no artificial interference (distortions) placed on the system by government and/or unions.

Your pay should not depend on how well connected you are to the political elites.

You're dodging the question since free markets only exist in fairy tales. So I'll ask again, how much income inequality should we have in our American society?

The question is are you going to pretend that your Democratic elites aren't just as culpable in the "income inequality" you hate so much? C'mon, you know that there will always be income inequality - even in communist countries there are haves and have nots.

Truthfully, there probably is a segment of society that makes more than they're actually worth, but do you honestly trust the government to "even the score"? Part of the problem now is that the government picking winners and losers favors those that have the money and power now.

I'm not advocating for all incomes being the same. I merely asking whether the wealthiest country in the world should have 45 million people living in poverty (most of which are working poor). Are we okay with the top 1% holding 36% of the wealth in the country? Is that a system we're comfortable with? So how much income inequality are we willing to tolerate?

The rest of the issues you raise deserve discussion, but let's talk about the inequality question before we talk about who's to blame and what to do about it.

(10-31-2014 09:19 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I'm not advocating for all incomes being the same. I merely asking whether the wealthiest country in the world should have 45 million people living in poverty (most of which are working poor).

It depends on what the definition of poverty is.

Most people living in poverty here have a home, car, cable TV, internet, a fully stocked fridge and/or a smart phone.

99% of all humans ever born on this planet would think that is NOT poverty.

I know that doesn't fit the far left narrative you are pushing, but if you are "merely asking whether the wealthiest country in the world should have 45 million people living in poverty", it is a serious dose of reality.

(10-31-2014 09:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 08:53 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  You're dodging the question since free markets only exist in fairy tales. So I'll ask again, how much income inequality should we have in our American society?

And you're dodging the fact that income equality under Obama has grown by leaps and bounds. He has been as good for the rich and as bad for the poor as any President in History... Yet you blame only the right? Silly, really.

Income inequality is a function of risk vs reward. "workers' take no market risk... thus their reward is virtually nothing. Republicans constantly encourage workers, regardless of party to become 'owners'... to think like rich people so that they can become rich people... and democrats keep them thinking like workers so that they will remain workers.

Obama pushed hundreds of billions into the pockets of the wealthy amd has done virtually nothing for the poor, except to make sure that they remain at the whims of the government for decades.

There is absolutely no way to answer your question, and the fact that you ask it makes you look unintelligent. The rate of return on risk is always going to be higher than the rate of return on security... and they wealthy have money to risk (and Obama gave them more). The wealth gap is therefore merely a function of time. The sooner people start thinking and acting like owners, the faster their wealth will grow.

Our tax policy, including estate taxes actually makes the wealthy, wealthier... and encourages those /approaching/ being wealthy to sell out to the already wealthy. It's how Democrat Buffet made his fortune

You know this, but it doesn't suit your political agenda, so you focus on meaningless things like 'how big the income equality should be'.

Apparently Democrats don't yet think it is big enough

I think one of the hallmarks of being "unintelligent" is consistently showing an inability to grasp the question being asked.