Destroying one crucial pillar of liberal ideology — "Wealth Inequality is bad"

There's quid-pro-quos for corporate and other wealthy campaign donors too.

I'm not conceding a damn thing, I said I wasn't going to explain to you how internet advertising works. Know the difference.

I'm quite familiar with the English language, you, on the other hand, have much to learn about business.

There are over 226,000 kilometers of railroad in the United States. I highly doubt the Big Four and the other railroads that own and operate the roads have the manpower to inspect every single mile of track every year. I would not be surprised at all to find that there are definite areas of the United States Rail network that are woefully deficient

Even if the United States rail network isn't the beneficiary of this project, there are nearly four million miles of roads in the United States, I am highly doubtful they are all in proper upkeep. Considering our infrastructure got damn close to a failing grade, I'd say most of them are already in a poor shape. We only ever hear about it when one of them fails, though.

 

Not possible. Obama raised a billion dollars from small time donors, or so we are lead to believe

I know exactly how internet advertising work but that you refuse to admit that you were 100% wrong proves you know you are full of fudge but your ego won't let you admit it. Facebook has created billions in business activity and does not require users to pay a dime. Refute it or surrender.

Busness and economics are two different things. Maybe next you will tell me I don't know a thing about paleontology, but doesn't make you any less wrong.

So why can't you admit you want to subsidize BIG business in the name of helping the poor? Still stinging from the huge profits medical providers and insurance companies are going to be getting under the guise that the ACA was a program for the poor that only benefits middle class people at or above the median income for which there is no possible gap in coverage like the poor are experiencing?

 

If you believe that, would you be interested in some wonderful oceanfront property just west of Omaha?

Actually, my assertion was more about wealth creation before the e-commerce revolution of the past 20 years. Facebook's ad revenues would also be crap if they didn't have over 250 million Americans on their site.

Business, economics, let's just leave it at you're ignorant of the whole kit and caboodle. Any businessman worth his salt, by definition, needs to have a grounding in economics. In fact, the first two classes I took in business school were pure economics.

I have zero problem admitting that my proposal would subsidize big business, but it would also help the entire economy by the nature of helping the businesses it is helping. Additionally, it would do more to curb poverty than anything that has been done since 1950.

I know the ACA helped the insurance companies more than it helped everyone else, that's why I don't support the law, but the potential thereof. You know, the part that would basically allow the Feds to take a peek into the books of the insurance companies and then discover the obvious irregularities that exist within their accounting books and then take them over? The parts that most Republicans were too dense to realize were in there by the simple virtue that now the insurance companies are doing business with the Government. Once they're all nationalized and streamlined, the newly-streamlined businesses can be privatized back.

 

What happens when no one needs to buy anymore yachts?

 

Probably so since I told the google sales rep we would not be paying an enormous monthly fee to make sure anybody who searched any or all of the relevant terms saw our name first in their listings when such an enormous fee would have never been recovered by their "guaranteed" monthly views. Let me guess, the two classes you took were intro to macro and intro to micro.....they teach a lot of that in high school now BTW.

 

Considering your tender age, I'm not going to make this really painful.

What happens if everyone has a star-destroyer? What happens if everyone has a death star? What happens if everyone were a Jedi Master?

- - - Updated - - -

Try to be a bit lazier, do not reply at all.

 

You are trying to express:

"Because it's put in the way that I don't like, so I'm not gonna respond to it even if it makes perfect sense and irrefutable."

But unintentionally, you revealed this:

"Dammit. This guy nailed it. Every sentence hits a home-run. It really makes my blind belief in liberalism look stupid. It really made me insecure. I'm gonna get back at him. What shall I do... what shall I do... since I have nothing to offer as counter-argument! Wait! I got it, I'm gonna go grammar police on him! Wait, that's so 2009. Ok, I'll just pretend I'm not mad, and say I didn't read his post carefully at all but making insightful responses nevertheless. Yea, that's really smart. Jonsa you crafty genius."

 

Wait there hot shot, how did you draw the conclusion in the bold text?

Oh yea, the government, right? They are in bed with the rich. I knew that.

Mind if I ask who is the reason that government got so big? The rich, who can live better without government's excessive regulation and taxation, or the poor, who rely on gov't handouts and EBT cards?

 

Don't smack on each others' backs just yet, I just pointed out a non-sequitur pretty much at the very beginning of his article.

And, unlike some wimpy members here, I replied with arguments, not emotions.

 

How dare you use your brainpower and logic! Quick, join the rest of the mindless mob in raging against the wall st., the rich just like the early generation of idiots who destroyed those knitting machinery!

 

It seems you haven't demonstrated your own stated requirements.....

 

You're playing around.

He was right, in my view.

If you disagree, so be it.

 

Since the ratio of wealth to poverty is the same as it has always been (contrary to what bubbleheaded liberals think), your comment is stupid and baseless.

Particularly since we now have forms of instant communication that weren't available at the time of our grandparents - a fact which also stifles your claim.

You want to stop cronyism? Stop wanting to stuff more money into Government.

 

You liberals are just so precious.

Are you a member of the rich?

Are the rich obligated in providing jobs for the poor?

Reality doesn't care what you think.

I think you need to provide data from creditable sources.


Mean while, let me chew your arguments (if the word spaghetti above can be addressed in such term) up and spit them out:

Who hire? The rich or the poor?

 

The idea here is that spending money creates wealth and if the rich have more to spend than more wealth will be created. Right? Well the poor spend a greater percentage of their wealth than the rich. Infact they often go into debt just trying to get by. Now if you give a poor person a thousand dollars, chances are they will spend it, give a rich person a thousand dollars and there is a decent chance a lot of it (if not all) will just sit in a bank. Now you might say that the poor won't invest to the degree of the rich if they will at all but just by having more spending money they are promoting a good domestic business environment. Domestic is important if you don't believe global equality is a good thing because the rich often invest overseas. In short, more money for the poor will also contribute to wealth generation and it could be argued to a greater extent.

 

Amen.

Some guys think they are so smart... but we (humans) all have some limitations.

The most ultimate straw-man of all... is when someone talks as if they are "smarter", implying that you cannot generate any thought or view to match their own.

It's just arrogance, masquerading as 'perfection'.

- - - Updated - - -

It's time for many more people to seriously consider what you are saying above. I thought that through not too long ago, and it makes very good sense.

 

I offered an argument. You did not. You disagree with me because you disagree with me. I know how a lot libs think: label seeking. If, say MSNBC labeled certain character as "anti-progressive", you would hate him no matter what and in turn, disagree with whatever he said.

But in reality, you libs see most people with no labels on their forehead. So you stick to the best you know — does this guy speak for the poor? But wait, that's too complicated. Let me simply that a bit further: Does this guy HATE the rich, just like I do? Yes? One of us, No? One of "them". I'll disagree with what he says no matter what.

I don't know you personally J-C, but most ideologically-rigid liberals that I know subscribe to that sort of way of thinking.

That being said, I have no intention of offending you. If I knew anything, most liberals did not became liberals because they "wanted to". They just don't know any better.

As for how I became a independent that I am, allow me be patronizing for once: I look at the facts, then I draw conclusion based on them no matter how much I find the conclusion unlikable and repulsive.

Can you say the same thing about yourself?

 

With no standing counterarguments being offered from the left, I think it is self-evident. But of course, I'll be equally benevolent in guiding you into acknowledging that fact...

 

I didn't think it was necessary to present counter arguments to disjointed ramblings

 

Who gives a flying crap if what they actually spend is peanuts?

What do you think happens to money placed in banks, genius?

People become wealthy because they know how to invest. Spending isn't investment; it is tier 1 economic stimulus. If money was represented by seed, the poor simply eat their seed. It, therefore, cannot sprout and create fields; it is merely consumed. The wealthy certainly eat seed as well, but they also have far more seed with which they PLANT, and create many multiples of the seed with which they began. That is an economic multiplier effect.

And the most important thing we can do with our economy.

What are the poor doing when they buy goods made in China?

The argument fails. The poor already do not pay taxes; they receive money at tax time.

 

Well, I don't think you're going to 'fix' all the people you seem to want to reform or whatever.

Even so, where it concerns wealth inequality... I don't see ANY way we can have good outcomes if so much is skewed in favor of a limited few.

That is just a disaster waiting to manifest itself (further).

Yes, if you are staunch Conservative, we are going to disagree. Nevertheless, neither one of us has ALL BAD ideas, values or approaches.

 

Lots of businesses do. They rely on it.

Firstly you don't need to try and insult me by questioning my intelligence. To answer your question, some of it is invested, I'll concede that. What I won't concede is that the trickle down effect of that is better than someone spending it or being willing to spend 100% of it on things they need.

People become wealthy for multiple reasons. Some are born into it and never invest a cent in their lives. Private investment isn't the only reason the economy multiplies either. Government investment into things such as scientific research, infrastructure, small business grants and also create a lot of wealth. That's sort of besides the point though, the point is if the "tier 1 seed eaters" as you put it have no or very little money than "planting" seeds will be a much harder prospect. I'm not saying that the rich don't contribute anything, I just tend to think the trickle down effect would be less effective means of wealth generation in isolation than the poor having and spending more money. The largest and most successful companies in the world make items for mass consumption, not for the consumption of the1 percent. If people can afford to buy more than it's a better business environment or "planting environment".

Getting taxed by China? I don't understand why you'd think foreign investment creates more domestic wealth than the majority of your population spending money locally. I did state domestic wealth and only said it's an issue if you don't believe in global equality.

The point was if they have money, they spend money and in such a scenario they pay taxes. I'm not saying put everyone on welfare and just give them money either.

 

I am not surprised such a ridiculous fanciful distortion of st.ronnie's discredited economic plan seems to make perfect sense and is irrefutable to you. What matters empirical evidence when viewing the past thru a distorted lens?

Ah, the old "i'm a legend in my own mind" syndrome displaying itself in all its inglorious dumb defense.

So let me spell it out for you because it seems your grasp is greatly exceeded by your reach.

You stated that anyone that doesn't agree with you BEFORE they read your post is: insane, stupid, incapable of reason, and should refrain from using big words in proper context. This level of conceit for one's own opinion is further demonstrated throughout the OP and subsequent replies.

Attempting to retread the failed "theory" of trickle down is something I am not surprised some conservatives would attempt. Its yet another example of them not allowing facts and evidence to get in the way of their misty eyed version of imagined past glories. The original premise has been proven economically ineffective.

It would seem that you believe that making a declarative statement such as "perfect sense and irrefutable" actually makes it so.

Well, they do say that perception is reality in the mind of a solopsist.

 

No Im not rich. No the rich aren't obligated, but you'd asked if the rich could provide jobs for the bottom 10%, I dont think they can.

Ok but first, why do you think the rich can afford to pay living wages for all the bottom 10%?

Between the two, the rich obviously. Why is that important?

 

What happens when people don't answer my question? I don't answer theirs and I consider any point they try to make after that moot.