Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Wealth Inequality in America

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wealth Inequality in America

    I found this information interesting:

    Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

    It illustrates the reality vs. the perception of the 'ideal' distribution of those included in the survey. Granted, some may say there is no such thing as an 'ideal,' that is, the ideal equals the reality or whatever the market will bear or something like that. What do you think?

    I think the idea of any type of redistribution of wealth is not something most American people spend a lot of time thinking about. But I also think most American people believe in some sort of notion of 'fair play.' What do you think?

  • #2
    Re: Wealth Inequality in America

    Originally posted by Quinn View Post
    I found this information interesting:

    Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

    It illustrates the reality vs. the perception of the 'ideal' distribution of those included in the survey. Granted, some may say there is no such thing as an 'ideal,' that is, the ideal equals the reality or whatever the market will bear or something like that. What do you think?

    I think the idea of any type of redistribution of wealth is not something most American people spend a lot of time thinking about. But I also think most American people believe in some sort of notion of 'fair play.' What do you think?
    I think we already have huge redistribution through our tax and welfare systems. Now our medical system. The left will never be happy until all are equally poor.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Wealth Inequality in America

      Originally posted by Quinn View Post
      What do you think?
      I think that the folks that did the video know less about wealth, income and poverty than they do about fornication.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Wealth Inequality in America

        Originally posted by Quinn View Post
        I found this information interesting:

        Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

        It illustrates the reality vs. the perception of the 'ideal' distribution of those included in the survey. Granted, some may say there is no such thing as an 'ideal,' that is, the ideal equals the reality or whatever the market will bear or something like that. What do you think?

        I think the idea of any type of redistribution of wealth is not something most American people spend a lot of time thinking about. But I also think most American people believe in some sort of notion of 'fair play.' What do you think?
        The concentration of wealth has been pretty much on an increase since post WW II in most, if not all, the western democracies. It may be an inherent part of the capitalistic economic system, inseparable without damaging the overall system beyond it's continuing to function.

        Next argument is going to be that the economy is a zero sum gain, and that because there are those that are successful, it makes it more difficult on the non-successful people to become successful. That because the wealthy have a larger part of the pie, there's less for everyone else. This is demonstrably false. Have economies not grown since the turn of the 19th century? They are the same size now as they were then? No they are not. So how can it possibly be that the zero sum gain is also true? It is not.

        What is your proposal to address / redress this trend?

        The only realistic proposal is government imposed punitive taxation on the successful and the redistribution of these gains to the poor. Isn't that exactly the system that we already have? And other than disincentivizing success, what permanent and persistent change for the better has it really gotten anyone? Other than promoting government dependency of the poor, such as is the case in the urban communities along with the destruction of their family unit and other chaos. Who ends up with any betterment of their situation? Anyone?

        Is wealth redistribution even one of the roles that government should take on? I'm thinking not.

        Live is unfair. Always has been. Always will be. Wealth redistribution is yet another 'solution' to a 'problem' that doesn't really exist that that liberals / progressives are promoting.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Wealth Inequality in America

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          I think we already have huge redistribution through our tax and welfare systems. Now our medical system. The left will never be happy until all are equally poor.
          I think the 'greed is good' philosophy of the last 30 - 40 years has resulted in a redistribution of its own. Both parties seemed to have bought into & benefited from the 'government is the problem' ideology. Replacing a government for all with for-profit free market business practices, weakening anti-trust laws & removing regulations on the financial sector have resulted in the present day outcomes. Along with an ever-changing & interrelated global environment. I mean, it's not surprising that things are the way they are, it's the complacency continues to surprise me. Our elections continue to hinge on who spends the most money to get elected. As if that guarantees the best outcome. It's disheartening.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Wealth Inequality in America

            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
            I think that the folks that did the video know less about wealth, income and poverty than they do about fornication.
            Fornication? How so?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Wealth Inequality in America

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              I think that the folks that did the video know less about wealth, income and poverty than they do about fornication.
              Precisely.

              You know why all the money goes to the 1% guy with the tie? Because you give it to him.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                The concentration of wealth has been pretty much on an increase since post WW II in most, if not all, the western democracies. It may be an inherent part of the capitalistic economic system, inseparable without damaging the overall system beyond it's continuing to function.

                Next argument is going to be that the economy is a zero sum gain, and that because there are those that are successful, it makes it more difficult on the non-successful people to become successful. That because the wealthy have a larger part of the pie, there's less for everyone else. This is demonstrably false. Have economies not grown since the turn of the 19th century? They are the same size now as they were then? No they are not. So how can it possibly be that the zero sum gain is also true? It is not.
                It's not that the economies haven't grown. The pie has grown, the concentration of wealth has led to a smaller percentage of people having ever-increasing slices of the pie.

                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                What is your proposal to address / redress this trend?
                I don't have a proposal to address. I don't think enough American people think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I do think the extreme concentration is a problem because it is inherently a less stable system.

                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                The only realistic proposal is government imposed punitive taxation on the successful and the redistribution of these gains to the poor. Isn't that exactly the system that we already have? And other than disincentivizing success, what permanent and persistent change for the better has it really gotten anyone? Other than promoting government dependency of the poor, such as is the case in the urban communities along with the destruction of their family unit and other chaos. Who ends up with any betterment of their situation? Anyone?

                Is wealth redistribution even one of the roles that government should take on? I'm thinking not.

                Live is unfair. Always has been. Always will be. Wealth redistribution is yet another 'solution' to a 'problem' that doesn't really exist that that liberals / progressives are promoting.
                Other Countries & peoples recognize the extremes as being problematic. I think that places them in a better place to address.

                I think other peoples also recognize that life is unfair however they see extremes as being problematic.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                  Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                  Precisely.

                  You know why all the money goes to the 1% guy with the tie? Because you give it to him.
                  I'm not really sure what you mean. If you think about the 'pie' metaphor, I think most people would think that a person who already has half the pie wouldn't want to have more than that. If they did, I think most people would think they were being greedy not admirable.

                  I know this may sound pretty simplistic but simple ideas are sometimes the most difficult to express. & I think most people are fair & reasonable.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                    The underlying reasons is not that someone is getting richer but that those on the lower end are less inclined to try and get more.

                    It has become easier and easier to not put in effort and still have enough to survive. Those who do not want to just survive still work hard and are moving up. This lack of ambition coupled with the government telling you that you cannot do it yourself that these mean evil people who are rich will stop you from becoming even middle class has worked.

                    Anecdotal evidence proves that someone on the low end truly believes they cannot succeed even moderately and have the basics like their own home without the government stepping in.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                      Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                      Fornication? How so?
                      Look it up...

                      Income low or high does not equal wealth. Ask Mike Tyson about that.

                      Similarly large value assets to not equal large incomes. They might, but just as easily not. Ask any 3rd or 4th generation trust fund baby. You could also ask Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. Big wealth... not so big income.

                      From the first Mother Jones (communist rag) chart:

                      A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.
                      The chart notes in 2 pt type that this includes capital gains...

                      In the same chart they then talk about wealth... and in doing so tell you why wealth has gotten skewed:

                      Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.
                      Then they go right back to income...

                      And it goes on like this... over and over again...

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                        Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                        I'm not really sure what you mean. If you think about the 'pie' metaphor, I think most people would think that a person who already has half the pie wouldn't want to have more than that. If they did, I think most people would think they were being greedy not admirable.

                        I know this may sound pretty simplistic but simple ideas are sometimes the most difficult to express. & I think most people are fair & reasonable.
                        The first thing the culture tells anyone who manages to make an income beyond paycheck to paycheck is to invest it. At which point they are back to the paycheck to paycheck level (but hey, they are invested!), and the guy they pay to invest thier money for them takes a little off the top. A little off of everyones top adds up real fast, and thats why the stock brokers and and investment bankers are so rich, we gave it to them.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                          Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                          Look it up...

                          Income low or high does not equal wealth. Ask Mike Tyson about that.

                          Similarly large value assets to not equal large incomes. They might, but just as easily not. Ask any 3rd or 4th generation trust fund baby. You could also ask Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. Big wealth... not so big income.

                          From the first Mother Jones (communist rag) chart:



                          The chart notes in 2 pt type that this includes capital gains...

                          In the same chart they then talk about wealth... and in doing so tell you why wealth has gotten skewed:



                          Then they go right back to income...

                          And it goes on like this... over and over again...
                          Well, we all know that Mother Jones tortures concepts and facts to make them read and speak to what they want them to. You know. Like propaganda.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                            Originally posted by Quinn View Post
                            I'm not really sure what you mean. If you think about the 'pie' metaphor, I think most people would think that a person who already has half the pie wouldn't want to have more than that. If they did, I think most people would think they were being greedy not admirable.

                            I know this may sound pretty simplistic but simple ideas are sometimes the most difficult to express. & I think most people are fair & reasonable.
                            The problem with your pie metaphor is that you think that the pie always stays the same size. The pie is growing all the time and just because someone gets more of the pie doesn't mean someone else gets less. This whole meme about the rich getting a disproportional piece of the pie is nothing but a campaign trick to keep Democrats in office.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Wealth Inequality in America

                              Income inequality will always exist. And it will exist due to human nature. Some will do what it takes to increase their worth to their employers, thus increasing their wages, while others will not put forth the effort.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X