Why shouldn't they? Where did I ever say everyone should be paid the same? I don't know. Why? I answered your question. I asked you several questions you outright dodged: Why would they not get paid as much as other jobs that require special education or skill? The question is, how do you account for the 1990s? I'm asking you to give me a couple actual, specific examples of where bankers literally own the corporations who have the means to outsource as you claimed. I can see why you feel you need to cut and run.
In our natural state, healthcare did not exist. Food has always been a part of life. Even so, it was never considered a right other than the individual had the right to grow it, kill it or barter for it. Same should be for healthcare. Where in the BOR's does it say food, shelter, incomes, education or healthcare are rights provided by the government? It is my contention that wealth disparity is a direct result of improper government intrusions in housing, healthcare and incomes. The more it intrudes the worse it gets.
What definition of "luxury" depends on whether it was "in our natural state"? I certainly agree the Govt intruded into incomes. Trickle down needs to be reversed.
Since I do want you to educate yourself, I will inform you that all publicly traded companies are owned by banks. And that is what all the big fuss is over wall street. Look into it.
Thanks. I do want to educate myself. So what I asked was: "I'm asking you to give me a couple actual, specific examples of where bankers literally own the corporations who have the means to outsource as you claimed." Can't you do that? What about the other questions you dodged?
I could literally list a thousand, all you have to do is look up publicly traded companies. But it is much easier to just end the discussion and let you think you won. There is no getting through to partisan people who just want their side to win. This is a pointless tangent that you started because you are apparently clueless about modern banking and the stock market and figures banks weren't outsourcing because bank teller jobs can't be outsourced. It's ridiculous and you should spend more time studying these things than blindly supporting your party.
There is no need for wealth distribution. Why are we taking money from people who earned it? If you want more money then you need to go out and earn more whether that is working hard or getting more education.
No it is fine since they earned that amount. The rich have created companies that have created millions of dollars so they deserve everything they get. It is just jealousy and envy of people who are not willing to do more to create wealth for themselves.
Earned??? What exactly do you mean by that? Does someone who flips burgers with their actual physical person earn their money? Does someone who just gets a check every month from a trust fund earn their money? Is there a difference? Many people on these forums are convinced that without the wealthy being as wealthy as they are all the jobs would go away and everyone else would all be homeless and starving. The reality is that all the wealth of the wealthy is invested in the "markets" and over a year almost none, like less than 0.0005% leaves the "markets" and enters the rest of the economy. The part of the economy where over 99% of the jobs are. The more money in the markets the less money there is for the economy where the jobs are. This is not jealousy, this is about basic human fairness. I am not against people having a lot of money, just against them having so much money that other people must needlessly suffer in poverty and deprivation when there is more than enough for everyone.
Please enlighten me on exactly what Bill Gates is doing that is forcing others into poverty and deprivation? And assuming you can even muster an answer for this, then please explain what you believe the solution might be to YOUR problem?
What is sad is that Americans allow a corrupt government to force them into impoverishing Ponzi schemes instead of allowing/mandating them to invest in the means of production and actually share the wealth.
Good point. Why should the 40% of Americans who combined have less wealth than the Walton family alone have a problem with that? Jealous bastards.
Those living in poverty should be happy that they are getting less so that the richest 1% of Americans can have about 40% of the wealth while they live in poverty. That way the 1% can manipulate more "trickle down" polices to get even more of the nation's income and wealth. Because more is never enough for some, is it?
Not when the richest are using political influence to get a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth. The richest 1% are now getting about 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth, double since the Reagan "tickle down" revolution. How much more of the nation's income and wealth do you want them to get?
Unlike those who are burning with envy, I really don't care how much they get. Just like everyone else, they should get precisely as much as people voluntarily give them.
I appreciate your honesty. You don't care if the richest get virtually *all* the wealth and income in the country and everyone else starves in squalid poverty. It why we will never agree.
Unlike some, I don't live my life in fear of that happening. I don't have a mindset of fear, scarcity, and envy. Nor do I spend my every waking hour figuring out how to use the force of government to take other people's property.
I didn't claim you didn't live your life in fear about it. Just pointing out that you don't care. It's obvious. But I disagree it isn't happening. Not virtually *all* but since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution the bottom 90% has seen their share of the nation's income decrease from 65% to 50% which been redistributed to the richest instead. It has hurt the livelihood of scores of millions and it has hurt our economy as there are trillions less every year going the the middle classes, the great engine of spending that (used to) drives a robust economy. But I know, you don't care. As long as the richest get a bigger and bigger portion. That's why we will never agree.
Adjusted for inflation, how much has the mean income of the bottom 90% decreased since the trickle down revolution?
