(07-24-2013 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think

bull****.

(07-24-2013 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think

bull****.

Keep on being wrong. It fits your type.

(07-24-2013 02:12 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think

bull****.

Keep on being wrong. It fits your type.

My "type"?

What "type" is that, Robs? Thrill me with your acumen.

(07-24-2013 02:18 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:12 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think

bull****.

Keep on being wrong. It fits your type.

My "type"?

What "type" is that, Robs? Thrill me with your acumen.

tea bagger.

(07-24-2013 02:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:18 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:12 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 02:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I think

bull****.

Keep on being wrong. It fits your type.

My "type"?

What "type" is that, Robs? Thrill me with your acumen.

tea bagger.

See, this is what makes you a fool. Well, one of the things.

(07-24-2013 12:55 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:38 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  If you have an income above $35,000, you are in the top 1% world wide. That's barely above the US definition of poverty for a family of four.

Which Koch head brother are you? Yeah, we make too much here. We need to cut our pay so the Koch heads can make another few billion dollars.

I was simply pointing out that much of the world lives in poverty, many on incomes of less than $1 a day. (You can find the information under UN poverty.) Just perspective based upon reality.

The poorest Americans have a standard of living higher than most of the people in the world.

I rely on facts and you revert to name calling.

(07-20-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  This is a serious question, and the point of this post isn't to advocate for socialism (I know some of you like to frequently make that accusation). I don't think anyone on this forum would be okay with feudalism. Those in power have all the resources, and the rest beg for what's left. How is that not happening again? the top 1% has seen a massive and disproportionate increase in wealth over the last few decades. Everyone else, including the top 5%, has seen marginal or no income growth at all. When our economy does well, very little changes for the poor (income wise). They stay poor, and social mobility in the US has been declining for decades. The richest 300 people have more money than the poorest 3 billion, and no doubt have more sway in our government than anyone.

Does a sharply growing income inequality bother you?

I haven't bothered to read the whole thread because there is no need to. I'm sure it's all lefties bitching about how the evil capitalists that run corporations and employ thousands are over-compensated while shitting on the little guy. They're probably also attacking the small business owner for wanting to keep wages reasonable so that he can keep his doors open.

Bottom line is no, the income inequality doesn't bother me. Do I think some people are over-compensated? Of course I do, but I'm not a board member or stockholder with enough interest in the company to change anything. I also think the vast majority of federal employees are over-compensated. That I have a huge problem with because it is my tax dollars being wasted. Work hard, move up the income ladder, and earn what you are worth. There will always be an upper class, middle class, and lower class.

dmacfour Wrote:
This is a serious question, and the point of this post isn't to advocate for socialism (I know some of you like to frequently make that accusation). I don't think anyone on this forum would be okay with feudalism. Those in power have all the resources, and the rest beg for what's left. How is that not happening again? the top 1% has seen a massive and disproportionate increase in wealth over the last few decades. Everyone else, including the top 5%, has seen marginal or no income growth at all. When our economy does well, very little changes for the poor (income wise). They stay poor, and social mobility in the US has been declining for decades. The richest 300 people have more money than the poorest 3 billion, and no doubt have more sway in our government than anyone.

So 300 people have more money than 1/2 of the rest of the world?



The libs are using this for class warfare. Stir up the population and stir up the votes. Even though I agree that some people make too much money for what they do, the interests of those that keep pushing this are not altruistic.

(07-29-2013 09:48 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  dmacfour Wrote:
This is a serious question, and the point of this post isn't to advocate for socialism (I know some of you like to frequently make that accusation). I don't think anyone on this forum would be okay with feudalism. Those in power have all the resources, and the rest beg for what's left. How is that not happening again? the top 1% has seen a massive and disproportionate increase in wealth over the last few decades. Everyone else, including the top 5%, has seen marginal or no income growth at all. When our economy does well, very little changes for the poor (income wise). They stay poor, and social mobility in the US has been declining for decades. The richest 300 people have more money than the poorest 3 billion, and no doubt have more sway in our government than anyone.

So 300 people have more money than 1/2 of the rest of the world?



The libs are using this for class warfare. Stir up the population and stir up the votes. Even though I agree that some people make too much money for what they do, the interests of those that keep pushing this are not altruistic.

I doubt if many of the poorest 3 billion live in the country and have access to the American dream. There is a difference between taking risks and being rewarded (capitalism) and taking your gains by force (the reality of socialism and virtually all third world countries)

(07-29-2013 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 09:48 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  dmacfour Wrote:
This is a serious question, and the point of this post isn't to advocate for socialism (I know some of you like to frequently make that accusation). I don't think anyone on this forum would be okay with feudalism. Those in power have all the resources, and the rest beg for what's left. How is that not happening again? the top 1% has seen a massive and disproportionate increase in wealth over the last few decades. Everyone else, including the top 5%, has seen marginal or no income growth at all. When our economy does well, very little changes for the poor (income wise). They stay poor, and social mobility in the US has been declining for decades. The richest 300 people have more money than the poorest 3 billion, and no doubt have more sway in our government than anyone.

So 300 people have more money than 1/2 of the rest of the world?



The libs are using this for class warfare. Stir up the population and stir up the votes. Even though I agree that some people make too much money for what they do, the interests of those that keep pushing this are not altruistic.

I doubt if many of the poorest 3 billion live in the country and have access to the American dream. There is a difference between taking risks and being rewarded (capitalism) and taking your gains by force (the reality of socialism and virtually all third world countries)

Yes, a fact conveniently left out. Most of those three billion probably live third world countries with little to no economic development, or under the rule of hardcore socialist and communist leaders who keep the wealth to themselves in order to enslave the common citizen.