Another Billionaire Warns Of The Danger Of Income Inequality

Envy is greed...

 

Exactly what I was trying to point out, unfortunately, as any reasonable person understands, liberals/progressives are incapable of admitting their faults! Denial runs rampant in that idealism.

 

Our infrastructure is in shambles and we as a country are over $19trillion in debt.
We spend money we don't have, we waste $billions every year on useless redundant government agencies instead of investing in our infrastructure.
So in short, my ideals call for smaller more efficient government, spend money when and where we need it, yours, well that's the irony!

 

Same is true of the GOP. Your affliction is a common. Blind Partisanship.

 

thanks to republicans

you haven't been paying attention

nick hanauer is a billionaire, venture capitalist

[video=youtube;bBx2Y5HhplI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI[/video]

 

Envy is greed - meaning progressives are obsessed with the wealthy because they want the wealth they have without putting up the work or gambling on making it rich...

I find it disgusting..

Why don't you worry about your own finances instead of others..

 

you didn't watch the video, this has nothing to do with envy

 

Greed is avarice.

Meaning conservatives are obsessed with wealt because they want more and more of the nation's wealth they've gotten because of "trickle down" tax privileges ....

I find it disgusting...

The have about 40% of the nation's wealth, doubled from the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, but they want more.

Why don't you worry about your country instead of yourself ..

 

It seems to me that you're the one obsessed with wealth. I could care less what other people own. For you, it appears to be an obsession.

 

The Govt is spending proportionally less then every year Reagan and Bush1 were in office. And the Govt collects proportionally hundreds of billions less in tax revenues than it did in FY2000.

If you're really concerned about the debt, which I doubt, write your GOP reps and tell them to compromise with a tax increase.

 

Quite the contrary. It is the 1% apologists here like you who go apoplectic when you talk about reversing the "trickle down" privileges that have allowed them to amass a larger and large share of the nation's income and wealth.

 

You and your ilk are the ones constantly harping on your desire to take the wealth of others. If you dropped your nefarious plans, I would have no need to respond.

It's not bad enough that you are completely obsessed with the wealth of others, but you go as far as to recommend force be used to take this wealth from them.

 

Quite the contrary. I'm the one constantly harping on the fact that since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the middle classes are no sharing in the wealth they've helped create. Instead it's been redistributed to the rich. It's you who want more and more of the nation's income and wealth to go to the rich instead of the middle class.

Typical 1% resort to ad hom against anyone who might interfere with the richest getting a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth. They claim their not obsessed with their wealth but we see it every someone shows how their "trickle down" policies are raping the middle classes.

 

Nope. The rich have received precisely the wealth that their fellow men have voluntarily given them. No "redistribution" involved.

As I said, I don't care how much someone makes. I don't care who give how much to whom, as long as it's voluntary. The rich (and everyone else) should make precisely what other people voluntarily give them.

By "interfere with" you mean to use force to take their wealth and redistribute it. (And please note, me observing this is not an ad hom.)

 

Now, if only the right wing "Christians" who ruin ... oops, who run this country would only open their eyes to that truth, we could improve upon society.

 

I consider Major theft of property when a failing CEO who fired tens of thousands of people from their jobs, "Exercises" their stock options when the stock is high, devaluing the company stock for other holders, and walking away from a failing company with Golden Parachute after having done their damage.

- - - Updated - - -

Slavery is illegal. you do not "Own" your wife, or your Servants.

 

Nope, the richest get special tax privileges and "trickle down" policies that have redistributed a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth from the middle classes to the richest.



Or did you figure that in 1981, the bottom 90% just all of a sudden felt like "voluntarily giving" more and more of their share of the nation's income to the richest?

Why do you suppose they voluntarily started doing that in 1981?

Maybe they started feeling sorry for them. After all, the richest 1% were only getting 10% of the nation's income and only had about 20% of the nation's wealth in 1980. Poor dears.

Or maybe they started believing the RW propaganda bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about how if we let the richest get a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth, it would somehow "trickle down" on the middle classes.

You can fool all of the people some of the time ...

Yes, you've made that crystal clear. You don't care if people live on sub-poverty wages as long as the richest get more and their wealth is protected.

No, I mean reverse the "trickle down" policies that have enable the richest to get a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth.

 

Because caring about others is part of being a good citizen and a Christian!

 

Wealth distribution in America has major influences on poverty, crime, and growth of GDP. It also has impacts on belief and satisfaction with the Democratic system of government, tax revenues, national debt, etc, etc.

 

If a person received income then it was voluntarily given to him. How else would he receive it?

Everyone should get the income that they are given.

I don't care whether the rich get more or less. They should get precisely whatever other people voluntarily choose to give them.

And you would do that by taking people's property and violating their liberty.

 

So get the Democrats out of office, under whose policies the gap has increased far more than under Republican policies. Put people back to work increasing their incomes.

 

Through policies that suppress workers wages and give tax privileges to the richest.

Why did you dodge my question?

Did you figure that in 1981, the bottom 90% just all of a sudden felt like "voluntarily giving" more and more of their share of the nation's income to the richest?

What they are "given" depends on labor policies and things like tax rates.

What don't want to acknowledge is the fact that policies affect how much the richest (and middle classes) are "given."

Nope, by reversing the "trickle down" policies by which they are getting the bigger share of income to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

You complete got your parties mixed up, based on history or recent decades.

 

Wrong. People receive income from people who give them that income. Not policies.

I'm not sure how people felt. But the fact is that they gave the richest more income.

Tax rates determine how much of a person's income is taken from them by the government. Tax rates don't determine how much income a person receives as income.

I don't know what specific policy you are talking about that would affect how much income a rich person receives in income.

And "reversing the 'trickle down' policies" means taking people's property and restricting their liberty.

 

Again, it is amusing to watch a big government statist rally against a system he endorses.

Priceless.