homeless today are much like you in that they're mentally ill. Outside of the mentally ill or the Grizzly Adams types avoiding the law, homelessness pretty much doesn't exist. There are so many charities and orgs from Christian conservatives that going without is a choice. And in the event one doesn't want help from the caring people in America, there is always the cold and wasteful federal government and it's massive safety net. Getting help is so easy in America that even you could do it, barelyVoiceOfReason wrote:ALL Americans have these things? Have you ever walked the streets of an American urban city? Or volunteered at a soup kitchen?Hokie CPA wrote:When you consider that even the poorest of the poor in the USA would be considered among the wealthiest people in the land if the visited a third world nation, I would argue that the rising tide DOES raise all boats. Everyone in this country does, indeed, have their needs met and they still manage to get trivial wants, like that new X-Box One and cable television. Most Americans have a microwave oven. They have hot water, indoor plumbing, a FLOOR. These things are all considered the luxuries of wealth in many (most?) countries.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
I get the point that the homeless in America may not look like the slums of Mumbai... however, neither you or me would wish either life on anyone we know.
So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
Bingo. Funny that neither Houtex nor IP atttempted an actual answer.hokie80 wrote:Yet another deflect.
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
Because Houtex didn't want to address that actual question.Hokie CPA wrote:So... why did this need a whole new thread? The other one is still active, you know.
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
I'm not sure Houtex knows how to respond to a thread (seriously)....has he ever done it?Hokie CPA wrote:So... why did this need a whole new thread? The other one is still active, you know.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
houtex is what doctors call a moron.Hokie CPA wrote:So... why did this need a whole new thread? The other one is still active, you know.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
I think he did it once with the aid of a 10 year old. But that boy left our boy alone and so the knowledge has been lost.USN_Hokie wrote:I'm not sure Houtex knows how to respond to a thread (seriously)....has he ever done it?Hokie CPA wrote:So... why did this need a whole new thread? The other one is still active, you know.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
I'm wondering if all of those that are on this bandwagon are simply giving up all of their own wealth and freely distributing it to others?
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
I find it interesting that no one have given solid examples of the harm wealth inequality causes or offered concrete proposals for how they would achieve wealth equality.hokie80 wrote:I'm wondering if all of those that are on this bandwagon are simply giving up all of their own wealth and freely distributing it to others?
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Health care is now part of the safety net... the Rs most certainly want to take that away. And clearly you also want to take away the safety net for a significant percentage of the population based on you last question.133743Hokie wrote:I assume as a liberal (excuse me, progressive), you are referring the the Republican party. The Repubs/conservatives DO NOT want to take away the safety net in any way, shape or form. They ARE against expanding it to those that really don't need it. Do you really think that 47% of our population needs some form of government assistance? truthfully?VoiceOfReason wrote:OK... and which party wants to take away this safety net again?133743Hokie wrote:Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Is that safety net that does all the things you mention there because of trickle down economics? Or is it there because of policies enacted by Democrats?
Before I can answer your question, I would need to know what forms of government assistance are in that 47%. I get a mortgage interest tax break... is that government assistance? Is 47% receiving government assistance at every point in time? Or... is that 47% have ever received government assistance at some point in their lives? (Example: one of the GOP leaning posters on here admitted to receiving unemployment while between jobs. He now has a new job and is off unemployment. Does he count as the 47%)
The number 47% sounds high of course... but it really depends how it's calculated. Agree? Or are you not that inquisitive?
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
They are statistically insignificant in your opinion? And because nothing can be 100% successful we should not try and reach them?133743Hokie wrote:Such a fractional percent of the population that no program, no matter how extensive, can reach or help them. Nothing can be 100% successful.VoiceOfReason wrote:I have no problem with people becoming more and more wealthy. Never said I did. What I do have a problem with is people living without basic needs being met. Do you deny these people exist in America?Marine Hokie wrote:If one person gets more wealthy, that does not necessarily mean that another person becomes less wealthy. The alternative to the first person becoming wealthy isn't necessarily that other people will be more wealthy, it can be that the wealth won't exist.
Also, who says the poverty line is the line between having enough wealth to live on or not?
VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
How do you get that impression? Please show me a quote. (And, honestly, houtex is troll... flames do not count as actual opinions)USN_Hokie wrote:See VoR, these are the folks who think we need "wealth equality."ip_law-hokie wrote:Houtex nailed it, actually. If you have to ask, you are beyond help.Hokie5150 wrote:Actually, I was hoping that someone could provide a reasonable, cogent argument for why is it a bad thing. Seeing as this is how you chose to respond, I'll assume that, at least in your case, you are unable to do so...houtexhokie wrote:..the poster is compelled to ask such a question, he/she could neither comprehend nor accept the truthful answer. Any attempt to convey a rational reply would hit deaf ears and blind eyes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IP - you sure you didn't vote for De Blasio?
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.awesome guy wrote:homeless today are much like you in that they're mentally ill. Outside of the mentally ill or the Grizzly Adams types avoiding the law, homelessness pretty much doesn't exist. There are so many charities and orgs from Christian conservatives that going without is a choice. And in the event one doesn't want help from the caring people in America, there is always the cold and wasteful federal government and it's massive safety net. Getting help is so easy in America that even you could do it, barelyVoiceOfReason wrote:ALL Americans have these things? Have you ever walked the streets of an American urban city? Or volunteered at a soup kitchen?Hokie CPA wrote:When you consider that even the poorest of the poor in the USA would be considered among the wealthiest people in the land if the visited a third world nation, I would argue that the rising tide DOES raise all boats. Everyone in this country does, indeed, have their needs met and they still manage to get trivial wants, like that new X-Box One and cable television. Most Americans have a microwave oven. They have hot water, indoor plumbing, a FLOOR. These things are all considered the luxuries of wealth in many (most?) countries.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
I get the point that the homeless in America may not look like the slums of Mumbai... however, neither you or me would wish either life on anyone we know.
Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals
Re: Someone asked: Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? IF.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Houtex nailed it, actually. If you have to ask, you are beyond help.Hokie5150 wrote:Actually, I was hoping that someone could provide a reasonable, cogent argument for why is it a bad thing. Seeing as this is how you chose to respond, I'll assume that, at least in your case, you are unable to do so...houtexhokie wrote:..the poster is compelled to ask such a question, he/she could neither comprehend nor accept the truthful answer. Any attempt to convey a rational reply would hit deaf ears and blind eyes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Weaksauce
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Is that the question you keep trolling for answer to? Here is my answer...Hokie5150 wrote:I find it interesting that no one have given solid examples of the harm wealth inequality causes or offered concrete proposals for how they would achieve wealth equality.hokie80 wrote:I'm wondering if all of those that are on this bandwagon are simply giving up all of their own wealth and freely distributing it to others?
1) Solid examples of harm wealth inequality causes? None. There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth inequality. Please refer to page 1 of this thread for a more detailed discussion.
2) Concrete proposals for wealth equality? None. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) proposes wealth equality. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) thinks a brain surgeon should be paid the same as a McDonald's drive thru clerk.
Feel better now?
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Well then, if wealth inequality has no inherent harm and no one is proposing wealth equality, why is the issue du jour? Why is the media and the left pounding the issue so?VoiceOfReason wrote:Is that the question you keep trolling for answer to? Here is my answer...Hokie5150 wrote:I find it interesting that no one have given solid examples of the harm wealth inequality causes or offered concrete proposals for how they would achieve wealth equality.hokie80 wrote:I'm wondering if all of those that are on this bandwagon are simply giving up all of their own wealth and freely distributing it to others?
1) Solid examples of harm wealth inequality causes? None. There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth inequality. Please refer to page 1 of this thread for a more detailed discussion.
2) Concrete proposals for wealth equality? None. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) proposes wealth equality. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) thinks a brain surgeon should be paid the same as a McDonald's drive thru clerk.
Feel better now?
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Simple 5150 - It's the same tired meme the dems play to cater to their own low information voters who have bought into the falacy of "the rich have kept me down" and I "deserve" mine. Then the elite side of he left has always been compassionate with others money.
Beyond that, it's just rhetoric that folks like Houtex and ip spout like trained parrots and yet can't provide any critical thought to defend their position.
Beyond that, it's just rhetoric that folks like Houtex and ip spout like trained parrots and yet can't provide any critical thought to defend their position.
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Because it's a wedge issue for the Dems... and highlighting wealth inequality inflames the dummies in their base. See... the hard-left can be just as brainless and stupid as the hard-right!Hokie5150 wrote:Well then, if wealth inequality has no inherent harm and no one is proposing wealth equality, why is the issue du jour? Why is the media and the left pounding the issue so?VoiceOfReason wrote:Is that the question you keep trolling for answer to? Here is my answer...Hokie5150 wrote:I find it interesting that no one have given solid examples of the harm wealth inequality causes or offered concrete proposals for how they would achieve wealth equality.hokie80 wrote:I'm wondering if all of those that are on this bandwagon are simply giving up all of their own wealth and freely distributing it to others?
1) Solid examples of harm wealth inequality causes? None. There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth inequality. Please refer to page 1 of this thread for a more detailed discussion.
2) Concrete proposals for wealth equality? None. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) proposes wealth equality. Nobody on the left (or anywhere else) thinks a brain surgeon should be paid the same as a McDonald's drive thru clerk.
Feel better now?
Maybe the GOP memes on this subject are so stupid because they don't look into the issue, they just rag on the title. The true political issue here is what we have been discussing on this thread. In a country of such great wealth, should we (the Rs question) or how can we (the Ds more thoughtful and caring question ) assist those people who for whatever reason (and the Rs get REALLY hung on what is a good reason and what is not) are not able to meet their basic needs, either temporarily or long term.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
To which, I'll let James Madison answer for me:VoiceOfReason wrote:The true political issue here is what we have been discussing on this thread. In a country of such great wealth, should we (the Rs question) or how can we (the Ds more thoughtful and caring question ) assist those people who for whatever reason (and the Rs get REALLY hung on what is a good reason and what is not) are not able to meet their basic needs, either temporarily or long term.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- Hokie CPA
- Posts: 2634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
- Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
- Party: I reject your party
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Hokie5150 wrote:To which, I'll let James Madison answer for me:VoiceOfReason wrote:The true political issue here is what we have been discussing on this thread. In a country of such great wealth, should we (the Rs question) or how can we (the Ds more thoughtful and caring question ) assist those people who for whatever reason (and the Rs get REALLY hung on what is a good reason and what is not) are not able to meet their basic needs, either temporarily or long term.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
LOL! Aww... I bet you think you did something there, hahaha!Hokie5150 wrote:To which, I'll let James Madison answer for me:VoiceOfReason wrote:The true political issue here is what we have been discussing on this thread. In a country of such great wealth, should we (the Rs question) or how can we (the Ds more thoughtful and caring question ) assist those people who for whatever reason (and the Rs get REALLY hung on what is a good reason and what is not) are not able to meet their basic needs, either temporarily or long term.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
1) James Madison is a pussy. His university is for pussies and the mention of his name after 2010 is verboten in the mind of this Hokie. JMU can suck my ass. (Ahem... moving on...)
2) Mad-James has expressed that opinion, but he is missing the point. Congress is granted the authority to pass laws - whatever laws they want - so long as such laws are not in violation of the Constitution. (Example: "Congress shall pass no laws to...")
Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Congress passing a law does not make said law Constitutional. The concept of the federal government not having the authority to act as an agent of charity was well established until the 1900s...which leads to the question of who misinterpreted the matter?VoiceOfReason wrote:Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.
- Hokie CPA
- Posts: 2634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
- Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
- Party: I reject your party
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Considering Madison is the one who wrote it, I think his interpretation counts for a helluva lot more than anyone who came along 200, or even 100, years later.Hokie5150 wrote:Congress passing a law does not make said law Constitutional. The concept of the federal government not having the authority to act as an agent of charity was well established until the 1900s...which leads to the question of who misinterpreted the matter?VoiceOfReason wrote:Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.
Oh, and then there's this little gem...
US Constitution - Amendment X wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Last edited by Hokie CPA on Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
-
- Posts: 2182
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Every chance I get
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Question: If there was even a chance that the safety net laws were unConstitutional... don't you think the Rs would have challenged them in courts by now? That is the proper check and balance last time I checked. Until the courts declare such laws unConstitutional... I am afraid you will have to accept the fact that they are indeed Constitutional.Hokie5150 wrote:Congress passing a law does not make said law Constitutional. The concept of the federal government not having the authority to act as an agent of charity was well established until the 1900s...which leads to the question of who misinterpreted the matter?VoiceOfReason wrote:Mad-James was a founding father and a politician. And he made a political statement 200 years ago which apparently is being misinterpreted today. The safety net passed by Congress is perfectly Constitutional. While he expresses his opinion very forcefully and quite succinctly... it really is nothing more than his opinion. His words... are not in the Constitution itself... if they were, then you might have a very valid point.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Again with the reading comprehension issues. Reread what I wrote for comprehension.VoiceOfReason wrote:Then why did the DC government announce they were rounding up the homeless two nights ago in preparation for the storm? Must have been a quick exercise since homeless don't exist.
Yes, there is a good deal of public assistance and private charities attending to the poor. And by the way, the private charities are run by MANY liberal leaning groups as well as Christian conservatives. I will assume it was an oversight on your part, rather than some holier-than-thou attitude towards liberals
Liberal charities are far out numbered by conservative and religious ones. No oversight, just the way it is. It's even worse when you take away the charities devoted to killing babies.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- Marine Hokie
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
That so many people have this view is part of the problem. That pesky 10th amendment sure gets in the way.
VoiceOfReason wrote: Congress is granted the authority to pass laws - whatever laws they want - so long as such laws are not in violation of the Constitution. (Example: "Congress shall pass no laws to...")
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.