Thread: Wealth Inequality in the US

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by bsnub

This is the greatest issue facing America. It isn't government spending or terrorism.

Don't you realize that the US government is owned by these wealthy families! Most of our politicians are simply puppets for the rich.

Yet imbeciles like libtard obamabots play right into their hands by marginalizing anyone calling for more liberty and less government.

The government doesn't exploit you like the corporations you fight so bravely for, not by a long way. One example, I buy Tylenol pills in Thailand, 100 500mg pills for 40 Baht. Looked up what the price is in the US and found 24 500mg pills for $4,29. Tylenol Extra Strength Acetaminophen 500 mg Caplets | drugstore.com

About 15 times the price for the identical product. There is but one explanation, more profit, much much more. And that's the case for a vast number of products and services that are crotesquely overpriced to produce huge profits and a handful of billionaires. A good government would restrict the prices in favour of the consumer, and a bad government like yours outlaws that cheap Tylenol from Thailand can be sold in the US. A very bad government, also like yours, takes taxes from the poor and gives them to the rich to add insult to injury.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

The government doesn't exploit you like the corporations you fight so bravely for,

Are you daft? It's the big government which serves big corporations.

I never have been an advocate for the Monsanto's or the Ajiomoto's of the world, quite the opposite.

What is needed is less government intrusion in our lives.

I should be able to choose between a Tylenol or a top grade of cannabis at the local pharmacy if I want.

Gentlemen, one thing that should be perfectly understood by all - regardless of one's political affiliation and idenity - all the bastards belong to the same boys' club and continue to play for the same interests.

Very typical amongst those here that discuss American-based political issues, is to take loyalties to one's [invented] political "parties" and identities. You're conditioned that way, for one reason or another.

Still not getting it.
It's them vs. us.....

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obviously, Income Redistribution is the only answer.

Obviously. No question. Question is HOW?

A few ideas-
Inheritance Tax on very large estates (say 10mm+). No exclusions.
Can the Bush tax cuts- they failed, dismally
Raise the US minimum wage- it is disgracefully low
Crack down on the various shady ways wealthy people avoid tax, such as 'Charitable Foundations' that are not.
Increase corporate taxation, not by raising rates but eliminating the plethora of tax loopholes and deductions. There should be a base rate of tax that Corporations are required to pay on profits made, no exclusions.

Short of outright wealth confiscation or appropriation (which I do not espouse), this would be an incremental process, addressing the 3rd world wealth inequality in the US on a systematic, generational basis.

The aim is not to make the rich poor or any such propaganda, it is to restore the middle class to a point where they have meaningful purchasing power. A first world country where the rich and big corporations pay less tax than the middle class is a disgrace, and an economic model heading for collapse.

There is no difference between the Reps and Dems - only surface public fighting to distract you.

1) Obamacare was created by medical lobbyists that Obama brought into the sheeps pen, to drive revenue to the medical industry. Simple fact. it was not about helping people.
2) The objective in iraq had been achieved for the US paymasters. They needed their resources for the other wars in the region, not least the one with Iran that Obama will start.
3) Gay rights is just a populist divide and conquer topic to keep you all fighting and amused.
4) ...as opposed to increasing? How did the Dems actually do anything to help students then? Banks can borrow money at stupidly low interest rates and yet Obama and the smiley people don't believe people investing in their education is as important? Both parties want people enslaved by debt. If not, they would have bailed out people struggling with debt as opposed to the banks. they wanted people to have more debt.
5) Abortion is just a populist divide and conquer topic to keep you all fighting and amused. Nothing will change.
6) Neither side will ensure corporations and the super rich pay taxes. Both sides use tax breaks as carrots and sticks - check out the special tax breaks for Israel supporting groups...both Dem and Rep have pushed those through....
7) Union rights issue is about where the union lobbying dollar is going, nothing more and nothing less. The unions representing very rich people will always be favoured by GOP, and the poor by Dems because thats where their dollars go. Again, just a populist divide and conquer topic to keep you thinking you have a chpice and they care. they don't.
8) WTF? You believe that that would ever happen? A reactionary populist divide and conquer topic to keep you all fighting and amused.
9) Osama was dead in 2002. both Dubya and Obama kept him alive in the hearts and minds of the US public. He was then officially killed to raise Obamas standing to ensure he won the next election, and he had served his purpose. They don't need colonel sanders when there is a KFC on every street corner.
10) Both parties toss this cookie around and yet are both horrendously guilty of gerrymandering that is beggars belief. They are keeping your eyes away from the real crime with these little populist divide and conquer topic to keep you all fighting and amused.
11) As above - Neither party invests in education as they prefer to spend the money on wars in other countries and advanced military weapons like drones. If they actually cared they could easily do something. They do not. Simple fact. They just want people to have the skills to work a dead end job to pay their debts. That is it.
12) As for the economy? LMFAO. Vote for Ron Paul or any other person who says bring your boys back home, stop interfering in other peoples countries to create markets for the fortune 500 boys who in turn ship US jobs out to these countries. Your economy could be fixed in a week, and yet, it never will be, because they are not running the country and economy for you, they are running for their bosses.

Keep waving those blue and white flags boys - makes no difference because the people setting your countries direction don't give a fuck about you and they don't give a fuck about your sideshow politics either. Same as in Europe, the UK, Australia, and nearly everywhere else.

No difference between Democrats and Republicans eh?

Source: House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

No difference between Democrats and Republicans eh?

Off to a pep rally later to fly a blue flag? Problem is, trollybkk, you are a bit too dim to see why this ia sideshow to keep your mind away from the real issue. It is a no win either way,. higher minimum wage = less jobs and less employment. However, no increased minimum wage = people in poverty, needing food stamps, working three jobs just to make ends meet.....An only very small increase in minimum wage will mean more people fighting for less and less jobs to make ends meet each week. So, nothing will ever come of these because no matter what they do.... the poor people lose out.

So what do you think the big elephant in the room is that they are using this sideshow to keep you all distracted? Lets see is mr pep rally can actually think for himself?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

higher minimum wage = less jobs and less employment

I'm sure you can back this up with a quote from Milton Friedman or any of a number of laissez-faire ideologues, but a bit of data might be nice.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by pseudolus

higher minimum wage = less jobs and less employment

I'm sure you can back this up with a quote from Milton Friedman or any of a number of laissez-faire ideologues, but a bit of data might be nice.

Common sense. You, telfer that you are protected from the heady world of business, seem to think that firms who hire the minimum wage people in the first place will accept their wage bills going up, decreasing profits, through an action that will have no impact at all on their revenue. So will they increase their prices in a time when prices are being driven down, take a hit on their profits, or lay people off and make the remaining ones work harder?

Take a guess.

Heh trollBKK - just because you put something in bold, doesn't make it true. Now, pop off and prove then with out a shadow of a doubt that what you claim is true then. No emphasis on me to prove it now, because you have counter claimed, dim wit.

I was just asking for a bit of data to back up your bible-and-verse neo-liberal "common sense", not one of your usual bits of hollow rhetoric.

So, please show some stats backing up your suggestion that higher minimum wages = fewer jobs and less employment.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by pseudolus

higher minimum wage = less jobs and less employment

I'm sure you can back this up with a quote from Milton Friedman or any of a number of laissez-faire ideologues, but a bit of data might be nice.

Common sense. You, telfer that you are protected from the heady world of business, seem to think that firms who hire the minimum wage people in the first place will accept their wage bills going up, decreasing profits, through an action that will have no impact at all on their revenue. So will they increase their prices in a time when prices are being driven down, take a hit on their profits, or lay people off and make the remaining ones work harder?

Take a guess.

Heh trollBKK - just because you put something in bold, doesn't make it true. Now, pop off and prove then with out a shadow of a doubt that what you claim is true then. No emphasis on me to prove it now, because you have counter claimed, dim wit.

Silly fool, you don't provide proof because none exists. Dim wit indeed

Originally Posted by mao say dung

I was just asking for a bit of data to back up your bible-and-verse neo-liberal "common sense", not one of your usual bits of hollow rhetoric. So, please show some stats backing up your suggestion that higher minimum wages = fewer jobs and less employment.

I'm not a neo-liberal you dipshit. I am completely A-political. I was trotting out the hackneyed for and against arguments that the Dem and Rep flag wavers chant before blessing god for their party and shouting USA USA.

My point is that its all shit. Its all lies. Both arguments can be equally proved and disproved depending upon who you listen to. Its all fake, and it is designed to keep muppets like TonyBKK busy for a while and not questioning the real issue.

i thought you said you were clever, Mao? All these types of things are like arguing if a baby is a boy or a girl and completely ignoring the fact that it is sat in jaws of a fecking huge hungry salt water crocodile.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Silly fool, you don't provide proof because none exists. Dim wit indeed

You just can not do it can you. You make a claim and will not back anything up. A typical Dem or Rep flag waiving robot. Take anything your preferred pasrt tells you, waves a flag about it, cheers a bit, chants USA USA USA, and then waits open mouthed for the next shit to be told to you.

You claim that that is not a reasonable against argument then go and prove it.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I'm not a neo-liberal you dipshit. I am completely A-political.

Neo-liberalism, "dipshit", is primarily an economic dogma that promotes bogus notions like you are spouting here about the effect of minimum wages. So, a-political or not, if you are going to promote neo-liberal propaganda, you should be prepared to back it up with stats.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I'm not a neo-liberal you dipshit. I am completely A-political.

Neo-liberalism, "dipshit", is primarily an economic dogma that promotes bogus notions like you are spouting here about the effect of minimum wages. So, a-political or not, if you are going to promote neo-liberal propaganda, you should be prepared to back it up with stats.

What do you not get? Back up what? A load of bullshit from both sides? A fecking script written by some people for morons like you and trolbkk to toss out? What do you not get? Its all fake. Its a side show. There is nothing that can happen or will happen. Its lies. All of it. Didn't they teach you that when you bought yout TESL in khosan?

ok, when someone pseudolus to back up his statements, he responds with

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Its all lies. Both arguments can be equally proved and disproved depending upon who you listen to. Its all fake

or

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Back up what? A load of bullshit from both sides? A fecking script written by some people for morons like you and trolbkk to toss out? What do you not get? Its all fake. Its a side show. There is nothing that can happen or will happen. Its lies. All of it

and then later (in the same post!) has the gall to post...

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You make a claim and will not back anything up.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I'm not a neo-liberal you dipshit. I am completely A-political.

whoops!

as pointed out by mao, you don't seem to have any idea what neoliberalism is.

^Pseudo uses a method similar to what I do when the BiB stop me on my little moto for a 200 baht donation.

A little foam-flecked nonsense-Thai and a willingness to extend the absurdity endlessly seems to convince them to let me go.

But that's different.

Originally Posted by raycarey

ok, when someone pseudolus to back up his statements, he responds with

I am a little confused to be fair. I state that both arguments are made up, can be equally proven and disproven, and is all a side show for fools to fawn over, and they get repeated requests to "prove" one of the fake sides of the fake argument? What do you suggest I do? You must have more patience then me if you would go and pull out all the for and against rhetoric for both sides of the argument.

Originally Posted by raycarey

whoops! as pointed out by mao, you don't seem to have any idea what neoliberalism is.

Interesting - so in the context of this thread, there is no politics involved? Not one side waving a certain coloured flag who could be assumed to have more neo-liberal thoughts than another? However, if you want to believe that neo-liberalism is not at all political, then you feel free. You're wrong. but you feel free. Maybe you misunderstand me saying I am a-political? Perhaps I should change it to being that current day politics is all a gameshow designed to keep the masses in debt and their eyes off what is really happening. After all, when was the last time an average Joe became president of the USA? Barry Soetoro Perhaps?

I just hate it when all you people start harping on and on about income disparity and how the 1% of the really really rich people own 60%+ of all the assets... blah blah blah.. and have the tax system rigged and the politicians bought and paid for.

What's the point of getting rich if you can't rig the fucking system and you end up having to share your good fortune with all manner of low life's and leeches.

Just be thankful all those super rich people gave you a chance in the first place....but you were too stupid or untalented to make it like they did. Drones are destined to be poor and under-achieving. Movers and shakers are destined to be rich and successful. Sometimes it seems unfair that someone like Justin Bieber can be a zillionaire at 19 with almost no brain or talent, while many TD TEFL'ers slave away in Thailand for $1000 a month.....but hey.....life ain't fair, so get over it.

Justin has several excellent tax lawyers and a whole accounting firm working on his behalf....what do you have?

Anyway poor people are quite disgusting for the most part. They don't dress well; have bad haircuts; appalling tastes in music, wine and home décor...and many even smell a bit skanky..

Most rich people on the other hand have class, style, and of course shit loads of cash. Every loser and ding-bat in society wants to be just like them, but they can't, because they are....well...loser's; so the best they can do is start threads on internet forums and bitch about their misfortune and exchange ideas on how to rectify the situation.....which has really been the norm for thousands of years, with a few occasional breaks here and there.

All these discussions are punctuated by endless requests for "links" and "proof" which results in more opinions being cut and pasted over from a variety of sources unacceptable to anybody; which results in even more demands for "proof" and so it goes on, until everybody just gets tired and goes out to get drunk.

All that's happening is that the Feudal barons are back with a vengeance and the serfs and peasants are back in their customary places...... If we could just bring back divine rights and re-institute the slave trade, things would improve very quickly. Sorry, I have no link for that, but I do know for a fact that the barons understand it very well... and they also know that you never will.......

^^OK, OK, OK.... you go NOW. Sawat-dii khrap!

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You just can not do it can you. You make a claim and will not back anything up. A typical Dem or Rep flag waiving robot. Take anything your preferred pasrt tells you, waves a flag about it, cheers a bit, chants USA USA USA, and then waits open mouthed for the next shit to be told to you.

You claim that that is not a reasonable against argument then go and prove it.

You don't read so good do ya Pseudo? Or you just choose to ignore anything that disproves your distorted world view....

Post #35:

Assumptions that in the real world prove to be completely false.
From: Myths about the minimum wage-


Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment.In a perfectly competitive market, anything that raises the wage above a level at which the supply of workers equals the demand for them will create unemployment. But a perfectly competitive labor market requires that neither workers nor firms have bargaining power; that everyone has all the necessary information; that workers are a commodity, rather than different people with different skills and a need to be motivated; and that there are no frictions preventing supply from matching demand.
Although everyone I know who teaches introductory economics presents this model to students, few believe that it describes the real world. In fact, in a survey of 40 leading economists through the Initiative on Global Markets, a diverse group including both prominent liberals and conservatives, only about a third agreed that raising the minimum wage would make it harder for low-skilled workers to find employment. Because only about one in 10 thought the costs of hiring probably would be bigger than the benefits of higher wages for low-skilled workers, even that number overstates how concerned these economists are about the potential negative effects of raising the minimum wage.
(Source: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ds-act-workers)

Originally Posted by koman

All that's happening is that the Feudal barons are back with a vengeance and the serfs and peasants are back in their customary places

In a sense, of course, you are absolutely correct... not all the serfs and peasants respond by bending over and taking it up the backside with a smile as you apparently do... just hope your particular baron uses lube.

Mao - you posts contradict each other.
tonybkk - an article from the washington post is proof of nothing.
koman is correct. Maybe I should have phrased it in terms of cap doffers and his knibs.

Why do they need to raise wages then?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

tonybkk - an article from the washington post is proof of nothing.

Well, it's a hell of a lot more "proof" than you've ever offered, innit...