United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Hokie CPA wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Marine Hokie wrote:http://www.census.gov/hhes/well-being/

I see nothing of xboxes and other bling in this report. If you are going to make such a claim, you might want to be better prepared to support it. Especially since you are one of the posters who is most diligent about challenging the information of those with whom you disagree.

No answer for the guy who has actually seen it, huh?

i've seen people living on the street in our nation's capital with everything they own in a shopping cart.

aren't logical fallacies fun?

I might want to be better prepared to support it? I did support it. That you would say such a thing is beyond absurd, considering the nonsense you spew here.

I think those cover everything (plus much more) except xbox and hdtv (it covers tv).
You can google, or I can google. The studies are out there.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... is-poverty

VoiceOfReason wrote: I see nothing of xboxes and other bling in this report. If you are going to make such a claim, you might want to be better prepared to support it. Especially since you are one of the posters who is most diligent about challenging the information of those with whom you disagree.

USN_Hokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

I would go so far as to say that wealth equality is a bad thing.

Wealth equality is a terribly bad thing. We agree on this. But nobody - not even those awful libs - is arguing for wealth equality. It's a long leap to go from pointing out that a CEO makes 300:1 compared to his line workers than it is to advocate a 1:1 equality ratio.

Plenty of people argue this (even posters on UWS). They even have their own political parties.

I don't get the point of such an argument when, considering the sheer magnitude of the Companies of which we're talking, if you were to cut the CEO's salary and distribute it evenly to the line workers such that the ratio is closer to the 23:1 that is typical of other industrialized nations each line worker would get an annual raise of a whopping $80 per year.

The fact is these Companies have to pay whatever the market will bear or risk losing their CEO to the highest bidder. That's just the nature of the beast. Is the actual work that guy does worth over $10 million per year? It is if his Company is willing to pay it. Of course, that could be more of a function of keeping the guy from going to their biggest competitor... but, again, it's worth it if the Company's BOD is willing to pay it.

USN_Hokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

I would go so far as to say that wealth equality is a bad thing.

Wealth equality is a terribly bad thing. We agree on this. But nobody - not even those awful libs - is arguing for wealth equality. It's a long leap to go from pointing out that a CEO makes 300:1 compared to his line workers than it is to advocate a 1:1 equality ratio.

Plenty of people argue this (even posters on UWS). They even have their own political parties.

which posters on UWS have done this?

HvilleHokie wrote:

Hokie CPA wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Marine Hokie wrote:http://www.census.gov/hhes/well-being/

I see nothing of xboxes and other bling in this report. If you are going to make such a claim, you might want to be better prepared to support it. Especially since you are one of the posters who is most diligent about challenging the information of those with whom you disagree.

No answer for the guy who has actually seen it, huh?

i've seen people living on the street in our nation's capital with everything they own in a shopping cart.

aren't logical fallacies fun?

Yeah... I've seen those people too down on Virginia Beach's Atlantic Avenue. And I talked to quite a few of them when they came into the bar at which I was bouncing. Found out almost every one of them choose to live that way. It's the epitome of freedom. They shirk all responsibility. They don't have bills to pay. And they LOVE it. Yeah... it's weird, but it's true. The poor who manage to stay off the streets are wealthy by any other country's standards. The poor on the streets who don't want to be on the streets will get themselves off the streets in a relatively short order of time.

VoiceOfReason wrote:

RoswellGAHokie wrote:The "trickle down" strawman.

Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

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.

What is with conservatives? Google "trickle down economics" yourself... you will find lots of references to Reaganomics... do your own damn homework.

The term is used derisively by libs like yourself to mischaracterize supply side economic policy. Again, please name me one politician or economist who advocated specifically for "trickle down" economics.

you should add "and without the help of special government favor"

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

They use the term to label republicans as having certain policies that favor the rich. While there's definitely more than a little truth to that, I don't know that democrats can claim to be any better. Both support policies that favor the rich. Supporting some "anti-poverty" programs doesn't change that, but it makes their voters feel better about themselves.

Supply side economics theory doesn't necessarily favor the rich, so much as it makes it easier for producers, but not at the expense of the consumers.

RoswellGAHokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

RoswellGAHokie wrote:The "trickle down" strawman.

Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

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.

What is with conservatives? Google "trickle down economics" yourself... you will find lots of references to Reaganomics... do your own damn homework.

The term is used derisively by libs like yourself to mischaracterize supply side economic policy. Again, please name me one politician or economist who advocated specifically for "trickle down" economics.

USN_Hokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

I would go so far as to say that wealth equality is a bad thing.

Wealth equality is a terribly bad thing. We agree on this. But nobody - not even those awful libs - is arguing for wealth equality. It's a long leap to go from pointing out that a CEO makes 300:1 compared to his line workers than it is to advocate a 1:1 equality ratio.

Plenty of people argue this (even posters on UWS). They even have their own political parties.

Who advocates that a doctor should make the same as a McDonalds drive in server? No political party that I am familiar with.

Hokie CPA wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Marine Hokie wrote:http://www.census.gov/hhes/well-being/

I see nothing of xboxes and other bling in this report. If you are going to make such a claim, you might want to be better prepared to support it. Especially since you are one of the posters who is most diligent about challenging the information of those with whom you disagree.

No answer for the guy who has actually seen it, huh?

Actually I did respond to him... but I don't see it now. Maybe I fat-fingered the post button. My response is...

Did he observe $50 million people? I never claimed there is not waste, abuse or fraud in the system. I would support attempts to clean up such abuse. Is his claim that there is nobody in actual poverty? If so, the please come to my neighborhood... I can introduce you to some people. Don't bother bringing your xbox games...

Marine Hokie wrote:I might want to be better prepared to support it? I did support it. That you would say such a thing is beyond absurd, considering the nonsense you spew here.

I think those cover everything (plus much more) except xbox and hdtv (it covers tv).
You can google, or I can google. The studies are out there.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... is-poverty

VoiceOfReason wrote: I see nothing of xboxes and other bling in this report. If you are going to make such a claim, you might want to be better prepared to support it. Especially since you are one of the posters who is most diligent about challenging the information of those with whom you disagree.

This is a message board, not a civics class. I am not going to read a long-ass report that you claim supports your point. I appreciate you posting the original source... now point to the place that substantiates your claim. I assume you have read it, otherwise you would not have posted it.

There is nothing absurd about my claim that you have not adequately proven your point on a message board.

And you follow up with an article from the Heritage Foundation? A conservative think tank? Am I supposed to counter with a study from MSNBC? C'mon... I thought you were better than that.

RoswellGAHokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

RoswellGAHokie wrote:The "trickle down" strawman.

Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

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.

What is with conservatives? Google "trickle down economics" yourself... you will find lots of references to Reaganomics... do your own damn homework.

The term is used derisively by libs like yourself to mischaracterize supply side economic policy. Again, please name me one politician or economist who advocated specifically for "trickle down" economics.

I did...

At this point, I'm going to assume you're screwing around with me for fun. I've given you two sources that discuss the luxuries poor people have. There are spreadsheets, pretty charts, and paragraphs. Use the search feature of your computer to find whatever keyword you're looking for on the document. All (and many more) but the xbox and hdtv were listed in the first source (though it mentioned TVs). Xbox was mentioned in the second source, among other things. If it makes you feel better, I'll retract HDTV and say that most poor households have TVs instead.

As for Heritage, I don't agree with their politics any more than you do, but I'm reasonable enough to not dismiss their facts, particularly when they cite sources. I suspect that MSNBC won't publish this data.

VoiceOfReason wrote: This is a message board, not a civics class. I am not going to read a long-ass report that you claim supports your point. I appreciate you posting the original source... now point to the place that substantiates your claim. I assume you have read it, otherwise you would not have posted it.

There is nothing absurd about my claim that you have not adequately proven your point on a message board.

And you follow up with an article from the Heritage Foundation? A conservative think tank? Am I supposed to counter with a study from MSNBC? C'mon... I thought you were better than that.

Since you're too reasonable to read:

From the first link (2011), of households at or below poverty, 81.4% have a computer, 90.4% have a cell phone, 73.3% have a landline, 98% have a TV. The numbers are similar for dishwasher, fridge, A/C, and microwave.
The second link talks about some of these and more, including internet access (to be fair, only 43% as 2011) and video game systems.

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Marine Hokie wrote:I might want to be better prepared to support it? I did support it. That you would say such a thing is beyond absurd, considering the nonsense you spew here.

I think those cover everything (plus much more) except xbox and hdtv (it covers tv).
You can google, or I can google. The studies are out there.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... is-poverty

VoiceOfReason wrote: I see nothing of xboxes and other bling in this report. If you are going to make such a claim, you might want to be better prepared to support it. Especially since you are one of the posters who is most diligent about challenging the information of those with whom you disagree.

This is a message board, not a civics class. I am not going to read a long-ass report that you claim supports your point. I appreciate you posting the original source... now point to the place that substantiates your claim. I assume you have read it, otherwise you would not have posted it.

There is nothing absurd about my claim that you have not adequately proven your point on a message board.

And you follow up with an article from the Heritage Foundation? A conservative think tank? Am I supposed to counter with a study from MSNBC? C'mon... I thought you were better than that.

VisorBoy wrote:If we were to build a society from scratch, the mark of success would be that all people have their basic provisions provided without trampling on others' rights.

That would not be my mark of success at all. For me, the mark of success would be that all have the opportunity for provide their basic provisions for themselves. If they choose not to do so, that is not a failure of society, it is a failure of the individual.

VoiceOfReason wrote:OK... and which party wants to take away this safety net again?

Why do you assume that only government can provide this safety net?

VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth equality is a terribly bad thing. We agree on this.

We do?

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.

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...

Hokie5150 wrote:

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.

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...

Houtex nailed it, actually. If you have to ask, you are beyond help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VisorBoy wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

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.

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.

How can you possibly make such a conclusion?

Many would love to receive assistance but can't either because they don't know how to or can't do it themselves.

The numbers are telling...

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-ame ... stics.aspx

The assistance is there if they want it. There will always be a fractional percent of any group that is incapable of using the assistance available to them. Again, there are enough public and private programs in place such that no one lacks for food, shelter or health care IF they are willing to get it.

VoiceOfReason wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

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.

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.

OK... and which party wants to take away this safety net again?

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?

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:

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:

Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

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.

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?

Such a fractional percent of the population that no program, no matter how extensive, can reach or help them. Nothing can be 100% successful.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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.

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...

Houtex nailed it, actually. If you have to ask, you are beyond help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet another deflect. Why is this such a difficult question for the left to really answer? Especially when some are actually interested in a response to the question.

Seriously....is it laziness or an inability to provide a real defense of the meme?

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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.

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...

Houtex nailed it, actually. If you have to ask, you are beyond help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See VoR, these are the folks who think we need "wealth equality."

IP - you sure you didn't vote for De Blasio?

So... why did this need a whole new thread? The other one is still active, you know.