Five facts that liberals have no answer to

You really are going to put the entire debt on Liberals? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Senses

How many democrats voted for the balanced budget amendment the last time it came up for a vote?

 

Yep,,, pretty much sums up Tony Abbott and his cronies.

 

Please explain what/how I buried. I don't quite follow. Thanks.

 

I'm saying you are not wrong. I agree with you. You are spot on.

 

I guess you could try if you really want to drag your thread in to that pointless mire of party political hate and anger.

We've not even established that they're actually facts though (or, incidentally, that "liberals" have no answer to them). Lots of people have addressed your OP and you've ignored almost all of us. It's somewhat insulting to try to simply move on to your next talking point.

 

Pablum in the form of straw men and either/or fallacies.

 

The term 'wealth inequality' is a canard invented by the left to promulgate further socialism.

Go back to any moment in history where you felt that 'wealth inequality' was not so much of an issue that you couldn't be happy.

1) If you cannot think of a time, then you have to ask yourself if what you're 'wishing' for is merely a liberal pipe dream.

2) If you can think of a time - and that's the person I'm targeting with this point - then ask yourself the following:

Q: if you too the top 5% at that time, and multiplied their wealth 100 fold, how would the resulting 'wealth inequality' negatively impact the remaining classes?​

Be specific, please. Not wild ass conclusions drawn out of the ether. I want to know HOW EXACTLY.

This question may not be for you, so feeble your powers of perception may be. "If they exist", you say? You cannot divine a single 'radical left wing politician'?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

lol hey left wing: if you leave the bathroom after taking a crap and aren't repulsed by the stench, it doesn't mean that there isn't a stench.

says the guy so far to the left that he cannot even imagine any truly left wing policies coming from Washington.

 

Aye. When people have to rely on government assistance just to make ends meet despite having work, they have to know that something is very wrong with how things are run. We're over-taxed and overly reliant on Big Government, and of course we're then told to blame rich people and businesses for it rather than the government. It's all quite sick.

 

These aren't facts, just rhetorical solipsism that can easily be discounted by looking at the past 100 years or so of the US.

 

Love Adrian Rogers, and still listen to his sermons on Bott radio. I didn't see the part where the member stated Pastor Rogers was referencing Obama.

 

while they're good points, you're right that they're wrapped in too much rhetoric.

 

As usual, a debate with someone on the Right is always accompanied by mocking, along with derogatory remarks about intelligence, as if anyone could ever deduce such things from a few words on message forum. It's lowbrow discourse, and so I haven't even bothered to quote it, as it doesn't need repeating.

Okay, so this is why wealth inequality is a problem. Money equals power. Hell, the Supreme Court already ruled that money equals speech, which is nonsense, but since that's the ruling we are living under, that means some people have more speech than others. So that's one problem with high wealthy inequality. And when a person has so much wealth they could never dream of spending it all in their lifetime, and they are also politically ambitious, that means they have an outsized advantage in our political system, whether it be running for office, or lobbying those already in office. And last, when wealth inequality increases, that means a greater share of the gains from productivity are going disproportionately to the people at the top, even though it requires the labor of all classes to make those gains possible. This is one of the big reasons why wages for average Americans have been mostly stagnant for decades compared to big gains for a select few at the top. And it all stems back to the first reason I state, their disproportionate impact on the political system, and hence, on legislation.

This isn't about socialism or demonizing wealth, those are YOUR canards. And I know nothing I say will move you past those talking points, but that's okay, you can continue to be wrong.

And it's laughable that you think truly left-wing policies are coming from Washington. We couldn't even dream of passing true liberal policies like Social Security, Medicare, or even civil rights legislation right now. While the country continues to become more liberal on social issues, our political system is still calibrated center-right, to the point where even most Democrats (note, I did not say all) are no better than centrists on economic issues. But even from the few liberal exceptions, there is no great liberal achievement legislatively during Obama's presidency. The Affordable Care Act? Not liberal.

 

Hmm, the 5 items apply to conservative capitalists as well, so I really don't see your point of view amounting to much of anything.

by the way, your five questions were answered by a Liberal.

 

If you are talking about the ruling that I believe that you are, they actually ruled that individuals representing corporations, still retain their right to free speech.

Sure wealth leads to potential influence in the political realm, but I hardly see that as justification to outlaw or inhibit said wealth.

"That means a greater share of the gains from productivity are going disproportianally to the people at the top".......This is probably your strongest point, and admittedly at first blush it looks sound. The problem is, the periods with the biggest gains in wealth (as opposed to income), just so happen to coincide with the biggest gains in the stock market. Which makes sense, since the top of the food chain tends to make their money off investements in the stock market as opposed to regular income. Wealth that is created in the stock market has nothing to do with the operating budget from said companies. It is a wholly different pool of money, and so the productivity gains from these companies are not impacted one iota. In other words, those market gains are NOT coming from the coffers of the less fortunate. Whether the market gains go into mr 99.9%'s pocket, or several of the 90%er's, has no bearing whatsoever on mr 50%. In order to equalize these incomes would require the stock market to tank, and that certainly is not advantageous to anyone.

 

Nobody is talking about outlawing or inhibiting wealth. We are talking about, first, acknowledging that massive wealth inequality is a problem, then second, figuring out what we can do about it. The most obvious thing we can do about it is have tax system more progressive than the current tax system, and one that does not allow certain types of income to be taxed at flat (low) rates.

But the stock market exists, at least in part, to raise capital for business. So, it's not entirely true that the gains made on the stock market should not be considered the fruits of labor, since it is speculation on the future productivity of a given company (and it's workforce) that fuels an increase in stock price. That cannot be done without the labor of all classes. If wealth is created for one reason or another (and not out of thin air) then it is the result of some action, or productivity, and it's a massive reach to think that some human beings are SO productive that they created a whole bunch of wealth on their own.

 

True, it DOES exist to raise capital for business. This capital from IPO's, is what funds the start ups and expansions that actually employ the workers, and as such, is a boon for those same workers. Beyond that, the market has no bearing on the workers whatsoever. To me, complaining that the wealthy benefit from the market, because the market is based in part on speculation of the productivity of the workers, is like complaining that Vegas benefits based on the speculation of productivity of the players in the NFL. The truth is, that an NFL player isnt impacted adversely by the profits of Vegas, anymore than the workers are impacted by the profits of the investors. In both cases you are dealing with two entirely different pools of money. As such, to imply that profits from the market therefore mean "a greater share of the gains from productivity are going disproportionately to the people at the top", is incorrect. The gains from productivity within the operating budget of their company, dont go to the market at all, unless you are talking about dividends, which are a very tiny portion of those gains in a limited number of companies.

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with current day liberal policy because it IS precisely what liberal policy IS.... just change the word "cannot" to "can" and that there you have current day liberal policy.

We have not done "better than ever" under liberal policy and in fact this administration has retarded our growth back to the 1970's. Our labor participation rate is at its lowest found back in the recessions of the 1970's. We have more people on welfare and food stamps than ever before. The only reason our employment rate has fallen is because, even after 99 weeks of unemployment benefits ( the longest that benefit has ever been paid), people have fallen off their eligibility and are no longer counted...and then there is OWEblmaerCare--- more people now left without affordable healthcare than there was before the ACA and we haven't yet experienced the tens of millions that will fall off employer rolls when the employers no longer offer heatlhcare benefits...and the list goes on and on.

No we don't. We go through cycles of the liberal policy disasters and conservative restorations and repairs.

 

I'm not complaining, I'm saying we could stand to tax that wealth at a higher rate. I'm not trying to abolish it. I'm not trying to fundamentally change our capitalist system. I'm simply saying a little bit more of that wealth could be taxed. And I'm not just talking about direct wealth transfer. I mean making investments in infrastructure that benefit everyone, including the wealthy. And if we do that, it helps the economy, and that helps people on the bottom of the economic ladder. Too many times this is framed in absolute terms. I'm not an absolutist.

 

Here's the problem. It's not that these people don't logically understand those points. They do. Those points just conflict with their feelings. And to emotional people, feelings will always trump reason. That's why liberals are known as bleeding hearts. Because they make all of their decisions with their feelings. No matter how costly or illogical. Logic really doesn't mean anything to them. And you can't reason with emotion. So it's not that they think that wealth redistribution will actually work. It's that they feel that it should. And so they'll never give up on it. And nothing will ever change their minds. It's the same way they are with gun control. Logically, they understand that banning guns only affects law abiding citizens because criminals are already breaking the law anyway. So it's not like they logically think that more gun control laws are going to fix the problem. They just feel like they should.

This is why I think the public has a responsibility not to elect emotional people into office. Because they cannot be trusted with power. They cannot be trusted to make wise decisions. Unfortunately, too many of the people who are voting these days are emotional, themselves. And so they just elect people who mirror their own feelings. And until logic comes back into fashion, we're doomed to face more of this nonsense in the future.

 

Im not commenting on you complaining or not, I am simply pointing out that it is misleading to claim that "when wealth inequality increases, that means a greater share of the gains from productivity are going disproportionately to the people at the top, even though it requires the labor of all classes to make those gains possible. ". I merely wanted to tell the rest of the story.

 

Based on your "five facts", we've been a socialist country for well over a hundred years now.

 

You'd have to define what you mean by "classless society" but if it's what I'm thinking of there has never been one for very long and never will.

I think the OP is referring to the morality of redistribution of wealth schemes.

Except that it has to use a portion of what it has taken to pay the bureauracracy that initially took it and gave it back.

This only works if the wealth taken from one group is more wisely used by the other. Reditstribution of wealth in and of itself doesn't make the economy as a whole more wealthy nor guarantee economic prosperity.

A nation of people may not quit working completely but it is true that the more hand-outs there are the more idle a nation eventually becomes.

America has played with statism throughout its history. It doesn't mean that it is an intelligent economic policy.

 

Well, you did make an analogy regarding complaining about wealth, and talked about the lack of justification for outlawing it. And you said it in replies to me. But let's move on.

The stock market does not exist in a bubble. It exists within the construct of our modern economy. That means increases in stock market indexes are both the result of and the catalyst for economic gains. Everyone participates in this economy. If the economy exists because of the productivity of workers in all classes, and the stock market plays an integral part of this economy, and the majority of stock market gains are only seen by a select few, then it's not a stretch to say gains from productivity are going disproportionately to people at the top.

 

Do you also believe that NFL players deserve a share of Vegas revenues?