Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Sep 24, 2012.
So the founding fathers promised us income "equality"? In what document did they promise us this "right"?
I'm confused....since when does what someone else makes in terms of monetary compensation mean that I can't make the money I want to make?
If someone who is rich now acquires more wealth by investing his/her money, does that stop me from making money too? Does that stop me from coming up with a good idea and starting a business?
This "income inequality" smoke screen is Socialist rhetoric designed to "justify" the Socialist agenda of stealing money from the rich (also known as "income redistribution") and then giving it to special interest groups associated with the Democratic party.
"Income inequality" is what you make of it. If you don't like that your neighbor has a better car than you have, go out and start your own business and make money and buy the car.
Why exactly is your neighbor wrong for working hard, making good choices, and then cashing in on that hard work and good choices?
I don't see the word promise anywhere ... where do you see it?
You read 2 posts and then went in some different direction for what reason?
It was just a study ... you know ... as in history ... it's not a lecture.
I didn't even state if I agreed or disagreed ... I just thought it was interesting.
Ok, well I think the article has an obvious agenda and that agenda is income redistribution.....or RobinHoodism.
So now you change direction because you really didn't read anything about it to begin with. It was a study that made some corrections vs previous studies.
Did you read the end footnote?
I'm pretty sure I wasn't changing direction.
I'm still trying to figure out where you saw the word promise and where the study says you cannot make what you want to make just for starters. Actually I cannot find anything in post #3 that is based on anything from post #1 and #2.
Nowhere left to go ... it's 2 different topics ... you will have to start your own based on post #3 because that is known as a hijack around here.
um....yeah.....I don't think I tried to "hijack" your thread. I think I was at the very least reasonably on topic.
But ok, I won't post in this thread going forward. "Problem" solved.
I'll bet. I think the closing statement gives lie to the premise of the thread title, no? That growth in inequality was likely a direct result of the growth of the slave population in the South.
As the article states, free states (North) had lower inequality. How do those figures show that inequality was lower under slavery?
This predated big corporations, so I can see how the differences were less extreme then. As I have said elsewhere, big corporations and big government exacerbate inequality. We need to level the playing field so that more small and medium-sized businesses can compete. The big company/lobbyist/bureaucrat nexus is killing our competitiveness and social cohesion.
I'm with PatriotsReign: get rid of public companies.
Whats the big deal? This is normal for a free capitalistic society.
If I go to a crap table and bet 10$ a roll and a guy beside me bets a 100$ a roll and we win ten rolls in a row. Your going to show "income inequality".
Wow....never thought you'd agree with me on that one. But what do I know about B5?
The public corp model is wrong on so many levels. Especially if we start with the fact that we allow them to exist because they benefit society....or do they? Because if they harm our society, why should we allow them (under the public corp model) to exist?
After all, that is what a democracy is all about....for the better good of society. I honestly don't believe the model is good for the businesses themselves. At some point, we're going to be left with a few very powerful corporations and few choices for consumers.
Anyway, you agreeing is a pleasant surprise.
People need to consider that in the 17 & 1800's there wasn't a welfare state, easy credit, a fiat currency, massive federal government, big corporations, employee unions, EPA, regulatory xyz, MIC, complex tax code, etc. It was an entirely different world compared to now. Sheer mathematics will always point to a growing gap from the highest to lowest earners. Consider that the starting point will always be, and always has been ZERO. That will never change. From that point the only way is up. We've gone from millionaires to billionaires, and some time in the future we will undoubtedly have our first trillionaire. All the while the base point will still be ZERO.
The real issue isn't the disaparity between rich and poor, as you will always have both. The issue to me is the condition, or prospects, of the largest group which rests in the middle. That's where the focus should be. To me, larger government, the welfare state both corporate and social, and foolish monetary policy are what hurt that group most.
1860 and 2010 miss the dates I'd really want to see; 1880 and 1950.
The more intelligent, creative, educated and hard-working one is, the more you're rewarded.
Hey everyone....guess what? We're NOT supposed to have income equality in America.
Bet some of you forgot, huh?
If you make tons more than me, good for you! If you make way less than me, you don't have my sympathy...it is what it is.
Separate names with a comma.