Wealth Inequality Is A National Emergency

[JPF]

One of the things I dislike the most about these forums is that they are filled with children who cannot think through a topic with any form of common sense.

Likewise for those who make blanket statements then are unwilling to support said statements at the slightest hint of confrontation.

If you had read the article I posed with any form of comprehension you would have noticed that the Founders considered income inequality to be "evil" in the words of Madison. To prevent that "evil" the Founders supported legal remedies to moderate income accumulation, or as Madison said "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort.”

I did read the article.

Your couching the words of the few as “the framers” is interesting. For all I know (admittedly limited—as you pointed out) these were the best minds of their time. I doubt the 54 or so who signed the DOE were of one mind in many matters. Was this one of them? Perhaps…perhaps not. You’ve selected some quotes to back up your position. Kudos. A lot of posters do not do that.

I’m simply asking you…how much income disparity is acceptable? Your obfuscation (then) and your insulting response (now) do nothing to back up your premise.

If you’re comfortable with Donald Trump Jr. making 23X what the janitor at Trump Tower makes….fine. Say so. If you’re not comfortable with DT Jr. making 200+ what the janitor makes. Fine…say so. If you want to put it in terms of how much of the nations’ wealth should be held by X percentage of Americans…great. Say so.

If you just want to make blanket statements but have no reservoir of conviction behind it…I guess that’s cool too but you shouldn’t be shocked when you are asked to clarify your position.

In any event, your comprehension of what is occurring is extremely limited. We have hyper-partisanship supported by lobbiests, and other forms of propaganda, in a country where less then 50% of the population bothers to vote, and a President who was elected by a small group of electors who did not represent the average person, or even a majority of the population.

Now, go learn what mediocrity is, or profit sharing, and any number of issues the Founders supported as could be applicable to today.

Perhaps you should learn how to spell “lobbyist” before lecturing someone else on what they should learning.

Good to see you’ve latched onto another topic. If you’re upset at the electoral college…great. Here is what I think:

The electoral college in it’s current format should be changed in the following way. Keep the format exactly how it is now. However, add in the stipulation that the President elect not only win the MAJORITY of the electoral college vote but also win the plurality of the popular vote. Otherwise the current constitutional remedies get invoked.

I do not favor the direct popular vote for two reasons.

1). You will have candidates who campaign only in large population centers.
2). What if we do get a vibrant 3rd party (or 4th or 5th)? The winner of the plurality of the Popular Vote may be able to get into the White House with 30% of the votes cast.

 

[Old Trapper]

CBS is wrong. Inequality of wealth is normal. Those with initiative and drive will become wealthy. Those that have no initiative or drive will remain poor. You want to become rich? Produce a product or service that somebody wants. They'll pay you for it! Awesome concept, I know.

Would be if not for two things:

1. It is the mantra right out of the fantasy book of the right wing. People buy groceries. Try building a grocery store and competing against Walmart. Got a new idea for a piece of technology? Try financing it before some group in that field steals your patent, if you can get one, and produces it. The concept was great back in the 1800's, not so today when you have 1% controlling the wealth.

2. having no initiative, or drive, is again the right wings excuse for giving trillions to the wealthy while cutting the very programs designed to help the poor. Even welfare is a program that essentially helps the wealthy, not the poor. Food stamps? You buy from the wealthy, they get the dollars. HUD? You rent from the wealthy, they get the dollars.

The education system is not designed to help the poor, and as more schools go private once again it is the wealthy that benefit, not the poor.

 

[Old Trapper]

Likewise for those who make blanket statements then are unwilling to support said statements at the slightest hint of confrontation.


I did read the article.

Your couching the words of the few as “the framers” is interesting. For all I know (admittedly limited—as you pointed out) these were the best minds of their time. I doubt the 54 or so who signed the DOE were of one mind in many matters. Was this one of them? Perhaps…perhaps not. You’ve selected some quotes to back up your position. Kudos. A lot of posters do not do that.

DOE? And you whine about my spelling,

I’m simply asking you…how much income disparity is acceptable? Your obfuscation (then) and your insulting response (now) do nothing to back up your premise.

You have asked three times now, or is it 4, and as I said earlier I do not know how one puts s number on it. The Founders believed that as long as all profited from the wealth then it was not a problem. When only a few did so then it was evil.

And now that I have stated the obvious for the third time perhaps your juvenile mentality can understand it.

 

[StoneByStone]

Bush and Trump are not the same. Bush is quite centrist...almost left. Trump is much more conservative than Bush.

Not at all. Trump doesn't believe in anything but Trumpism. And as far as how he's run the country, aside from the erratic behavior, he's been a pretty standard Conservative towing the GOP line. The only reason he gets more hate than Bush is because of how he acts.
And as for Bush being Centrist, he was pro-war, anti-gay, and gave tax cuts to the rich. What exactly did he do that was left?

 

[artichoke]

OP: Wealth inequality isn't even a PROBLEM. Take a first-year economics course, genius.

 

[StoneByStone]

DOE?

A deer.

 

[StoneByStone]

What a rude and insane comment. Yet you are insulting conservatives and republicans.

There's a difference between being unnecessarily rude and being real.
It's undeniable that the American Right has gotten insane and nasty, not just online, but in mainstream news and politics too. There are so many things acceptable now that never used to be acceptable before.

 

[StoneByStone]

Hello StoneByStone,



No. TRUMP! Trump has made it worse.

That's the problem. He's the leader. He's the one who gets all the attention. He says something, everybody listens. The media carries it. He has the bully pulpit. Nobody told him that doesn't mean act like a bully.

President Trump puts this hateful energy out there and people pick up on it, think that makes it OK just because the President did it.

Just like the little elementary school boy who had to be reprimanded because he grabbed a little girl between her legs. And you know he said if the President can do it then so can he.

President Trump is just wrong as a leader. He is a bad leader.

And he is making wealth inequality more extreme, a bad thing for America.

Making wealth inequality more extreme does not make us great. It makes us a plutocracy.

Make Plutocracy Great Again!

MPGA

I definitely can't say I disagree 100%, but I don't think Trump was the only cause. Fox News was already starting to go batshit during the Obama years. No question Trump made things worse, but I think the process was already occurring. Trump just made things ten times worse.

 

[JPF]

DOE? And you whine about my spelling,

You seem to be whining that I'm asking your to clarify your position.
My pointing out the contradiction between your encouraging someone to "learn" anything and your inability to spell correctly is perfectly valid.

You have asked three times now, or is it 4, and as I said earlier I do not know how one puts s number on it. The Founders believed that as long as all profited from the wealth then it was not a problem. When only a few did so then it was evil.

Again, it's highly unlikely that the founders all felt one way about anything.

And now that I have stated the obvious for the third time perhaps your juvenile mentality can understand it.

Ahh, the personal attack. The hallmark of someone losing the argument.

If you can't quantify your premise...your premise is either false or weak.

But feel free to give away any wealth you have to others; if you're that offended by income disparity.

 

[Old Trapper]

OP: Wealth inequality isn't even a PROBLEM. Take a first-year economics course, genius.

From the time of Plato, to the time of Christ, and then on to the time of the Founders, to the present, men, and economists, have all recognized the dangers of income inequality, and wealth inequality. Then some mindless right wing useful idiot comes along with his lower then low IQ and claims they are all wrong:

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-income-inequality-is-bad-20141024-column.html

Modern-day conservatives will shudder at the Saez-Zucman program, but it would fit well within the world view of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson and his fellows were deeply hostile to the accumulation of great wealth, especially by inheritance. In a famous 1812 letter to the printer Joseph Milligan, Jefferson acknowledges that "the overgrown wealth of an individual [may] be deemed dangerous to the State."

In economic terms, he wrote to James Madison, "whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

And in his autobiography Jefferson wrote of the bills he had advocated or passed to form "a system by which every fibre would be eradicated of antient [sic] or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican." His goal was to "prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth in select families, and preserve the soil of the country from being daily more & more absorbed in Mortmain" (that is, the perpetual ownership of real estate by a church, corporation, or other legal entity)."

“The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues—not faction, but rather distraction—there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil.”
–Plato

 

[Old Trapper]

You seem to be whining that I'm asking your to clarify your position.
My pointing out the contradiction between your encouraging someone to "learn" anything and your inability to spell correctly is perfectly valid.

Not at all save for the child in you. In any event, I tire of you just as I have in the past with your childish dissertations, and lack of comprehension. Remember guile?

Again, it's highly unlikely that the founders all felt one way about anything.

Until you post something that says they disagreed on this topic it i just your opinion, and worth about as much as the print in this forum.

Ahh, the personal attack. The hallmark of someone losing the argument.

If you can't quantify your premise...your premise is either false or weak.

No, just the "hallmark" of one that raised 4 kids, and remembers when they were about two years old and were more intelligent then you.

But feel free to give away any wealth you have to others; if you're that offended by income disparity.

Ahhh there it is. The typical right wing rant of one that understands nothing, and has no other retort then to say you do this, or that, if you please. How the hell would a punk like you stop me whichever way I decided to go.

 

[JPF]

Not at all save for the child in you. In any event, I tire of you just as I have in the past with your childish dissertations, and lack of comprehension. Remember guile?



Until you post something that says they disagreed on this topic it i just your opinion, and worth about as much as the print in this forum.



No, just the "hallmark" of one that raised 4 kids, and remembers when they were about two years old and were more intelligent then you.



Ahhh there it is. The typical right wing rant of one that understands nothing, and has no other retort then to say you do this, or that, if you please. How the hell would a punk like you stop me whichever way I decided to go.

I don't usually get accused of being right wing. Like most of your post...it is a hilarious assertion.

 

[JPF]

There's a difference between being unnecessarily rude and being real.
It's undeniable that the American Right has gotten insane and nasty, not just online, but in mainstream news and politics too. There are so many things acceptable now that never used to be acceptable before.

It is one of the things I never quite understood about Trump supporters. He makes fun of a handicapped person, he says a woman is menstruating, has told an incredible amount of lies, etc...

I can see why you voted for the guy because in our system, you either choose the D or the R. If you can't vote for one, you either cast a meaningless vote or vote for the other. Why you still defend the cruelty, the idiocy, and the lies two years later is the real "wtf" moment for me.

 

[survivor001]

This should be a warning that a Oligarchy is too corrupt, lawless, immoral and unethical to sustain itself and sustain a working and taxpayer paying society and economy. Democracy is the better way to sustain, and without lawless corruption that attempts to distort and corrupt the way of Democracy as is the will of the framers of U.S. Constitutional law, etc.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

From the time of Plato, to the time of Christ, and then on to the time of the Founders, to the present, men, and economists, have all recognized the dangers of income inequality, and wealth inequality. Then some mindless right wing useful idiot comes along with his lower then low IQ and claims they are all wrong:

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-income-inequality-is-bad-20141024-column.html

Modern-day conservatives will shudder at the Saez-Zucman program, but it would fit well within the world view of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson and his fellows were deeply hostile to the accumulation of great wealth, especially by inheritance. In a famous 1812 letter to the printer Joseph Milligan, Jefferson acknowledges that "the overgrown wealth of an individual [may] be deemed dangerous to the State."

In economic terms, he wrote to James Madison, "whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

And in his autobiography Jefferson wrote of the bills he had advocated or passed to form "a system by which every fibre would be eradicated of antient [sic] or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican." His goal was to "prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth in select families, and preserve the soil of the country from being daily more & more absorbed in Mortmain" (that is, the perpetual ownership of real estate by a church, corporation, or other legal entity)."

“The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues—not faction, but rather distraction—there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil.”
–Plato

And once again, seeing as how the question is apparently difficult for you:

What level of "wealth inequality" would you find acceptable??

 

[StoneByStone]

It is one of the things I never quite understood about Trump supporters. He makes fun of a handicapped person, he says a woman is menstruating, has told an incredible amount of lies, etc...

I can see why you voted for the guy because in our system, you either choose the D or the R. If you can't vote for one, you either cast a meaningless vote or vote for the other. Why you still defend the cruelty, the idiocy, and the lies two years later is the real "wtf" moment for me.

Yeah, at least people who voted for Hillary did so because they saw her as the lesser evil. The fact that so many people actually trust Trump to the point of worship is terrifying.

 

[JPF]

Yeah, at least people who voted for Hillary did so because they saw her as the lesser evil. The fact that so many people actually trust Trump to the point of worship is terrifying.

Agree mostly.

 

[Old Trapper]

I don't usually get accused of being right wing. Like most of your post...it is a hilarious assertion.

And like everything else in your child like mind, something you have not provided any rebuttal for.

 

[Into the Night]

Would be if not for two things:

1. It is the mantra right out of the fantasy book of the right wing. People buy groceries. Try building a grocery store and competing against Walmart. Got a new idea for a piece of technology? Try financing it before some group in that field steals your patent, if you can get one, and produces it. The concept was great back in the 1800's, not so today when you have 1% controlling the wealth.

Believe it or not, but people DO build grocery stores and compete against Walmart. Successfully too. Safeway is one example. So is Kroger. So is Whole Foods. Even the little neighborhood grocery store can compete against Walmart. They have something that Walmart doesn't have. A local presence.

2. having no initiative, or drive, is again the right wings excuse for giving trillions to the wealthy

No one is giving the wealthy anything. They are wealthy because they developed a product or service that a lot of people want, and are willing to pay for at the price they offer it. It is as simple as that.

while cutting the very programs designed to help the poor.

Anyone that is poor can start a business. Many have done so. I myself started with pretty much nothing. I developed my talents, developed products that people want (industrial sensors), worked for others to obtain a stake and started my company. It is now quite successful. I build sensors for industrial, aerospace, entertainment, and medical uses. People pay me for them at my price because they want them. I can't ask just any price, I have competitors. They will undercut me if they can.

Even welfare is a program that essentially helps the wealthy, not the poor.

Welfare is socialism. It steals wealth, it doesn't create it. I create wealth.

Food stamps? You buy from the wealthy, they get the dollars.

Food stamps is socialism. It steals wealth, it doesn't create it. Yes, you buy from the grocery store, but where does the money come from to do so?

HUD? You rent from the wealthy, they get the dollars.

Again, socialism. Same as any other welfare.

The education system is not designed to help the poor, and as more schools go private once again it is the wealthy that benefit, not the poor.

So you think the poor should never learn how to read or write, never learn any math, never learn anything about science, and simply live in poverty and ignorance, eh? How short sighted you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Not at all. Trump doesn't believe in anything but Trumpism.

No, Trump believes in the people of this country. He believes in and supports the Constitution of the United States. A patriot like this is rare.

And as far as how he's run the country, aside from the erratic behavior, he's been a pretty standard Conservative towing the GOP line.

I'll take the GOP line any day. He's certainly no standard conservative, as demonstrated by your next statement!

The only reason he gets more hate than Bush is because of how he acts.

Sure he can be crass. So what? I'll take someone with an attitude like his as long as he supports capitalism and the Constitution of the United States. Personally I find his crass remarks rather refreshing. He is giving the liberals the same thing they gave to conservatives all these years, and you can't stand that, can you?

And as for Bush being Centrist, he was pro-war, anti-gay, and gave tax cuts to the rich. What exactly did he do that was left?

The so-called 'Patriot Act'. Elements of that act are unconstitutional.

You can't give tax cuts to the poor. They don't pay taxes.