Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on December 05, 2013, 05:33:02 AM
-
So now the failureinchief is preaching that government should tackle this issue, as if government has the solution.
Is it now a right for everyone to earn about the same despite the varying skill sets, education levels and effort? Is this what America is about and where in the constitution or any written work by the founding fathers does it support such idea?
What are the countries that have very little or no "income inequality"?
-
Keep in mind that the failureinchief wants to achive this by increasing wages.
-
The amount of wealth that has been sucked upward during Obama's time has been staggering, even in an historical perspective. Same with the gap between rich and poor. Incomes have declined around 5% since he took the helm. This is what he campaigned on, this was his "bone" to throw to the dumb voters.
And now he is coming on TV and saying this shit? And his only solution is to increase minimum wage which only a small % of workers actually make? The Dem's are scared shitless with the mid-terms coming up and this is the opening salvo. Numbers and reality are not on their side.
-
Unemployment among black men in the US has gone through the roof since the first black president took office.
-
U can all mock the income inequality issue but it is slowly destroying the US as we know it. It started when big, multi-national companies (with no allegiance to any country), started union busting in this country, which eliminated decent paying jobs for the average white man. Once the multi-nationals have fully co-opted our political system, US workers will be on par with the rest of the third-world workers that currently make everything we buy. The heads of the multi-nationals and their families will live in gated communities wherever they happen to reside.
You already see this happening in places like NYC, LA and DC. The only allegiance of the elites is to money and those who are like minded. They could care less about any national identity.
The unions, its leaders and its members became corrupt. Why are foreign cars made in America better than American cars made in America? The unions.
-
Yeah - the same fool who cant even get a website working after 600 million dollars and 3 years is going to be the one to fix this new "crisis"?
GMAFB - how fucking gullible can one be.
-
Yeah - the same fool who cant even get a website working after 600 million dollars and 3 years is going to be the one to fix this new "crisis"?
GMAFB - how fucking gullible can one be.
You need to ask cholo.
-
U can all mock the income inequality issue but it is slowly destroying the US as we know it.
Who is mocking it?
You went off in a tangent and failed to answer any of the questions in the original post.
You are dismissed.
-
U can all mock the income inequality issue but it is slowly destroying the US as we know it. It started when big, multi-national companies (with no allegiance to any country), started union busting in this country, which eliminated decent paying jobs for the average white man. Once the multi-nationals have fully co-opted our political system, US workers will be on par with the rest of the third-world workers that currently make everything we buy. The heads of the multi-nationals and their families will live in gated communities wherever they happen to reside.
You already see this happening in places like NYC, LA and DC. The only allegiance of the elites is to money and those who are like minded. They could care less about any national identity.
A pretty accurate analysis. They are doing what's in their best interest and that's making money. I'm not even making a moral judgement, and I don't think cholo is either, it's simple a description of the nature of the beast.
-
There is no income inequality among the masses in North Korea.
Do we want to be like North Korea?
Keep supporting the dumocrats and we will get there.
-
Yeah - the same fool who cant even get a website working after 600 million dollars and 3 years is going to be the one to fix this new "crisis"?
GMAFB - how fucking gullible can one be.
BUMP
-
The system works for them and they want to keep it pretty much the way it's currently constituted.
The "system" is being destroyed with each social experiment and take over by the government.
You are very naive if you think that the "system", as you call it, won't change if the nation keeps going down the road its on.
Do you actually believe that the democrats, the gatekeepers of liberal ideology, are not any different than conservatives? Fool.
Wake up!!
-
What happens with fools on this board is that they don't understand the utopia that libtards want to impose.
People earning "seven figures" and 1,000 more than others is unacceptable to them. They want everyone earning the same. They want to take that money and give it to everyone else. Why? Because you "didn't do it yourself". You owe the state. The state was responsible for it. Not you. So you should perform your patriotic duty and give it all up.
Libtards have bankrupted cities. Does anyone actually think that their ideology wouldn't lead to the plunder of individuals earning "seven figures"?
Perhaps not in my lifetime. But, I am fearful for future generations.
-
why bother, he only knows what fox news tells him
-
why bother, he only knows what fox news tells him
LMFAO - Obama cant even deliver a website after spending 600 million and you take anything this fool says remotely seriously any more?
-
LMFAO - Obama cant even deliver a website after spending 600 million and you take anything this fool says remotely seriously any more?
I wasn't talking about Obama I was agreeing with what Cholo4Life posted.my world doesn't spin around obama
-
I wasn't talking about Obama I was agreeing with what Cholo4Life posted.my world doesn't spin around obama
He is the pos who brought it up
-
Cholo's not wrong, pessimistic but not wrong. But still, things are much worse under this guy, from the economy, rights, and race relations then anybody could imagine before he was elected. The guy is the biggest threat to this country.
-
Are u referrring to me as a "pos," oompa loompa? That really hurts coming from a highly decorated, former Navy SEAL.
What SEAL team were u on again?
Was talking about Obama who started this nonsense w his speech yesterday.
-
Cholo's not wrong, pessimistic but not wrong. But still, things are much worse under this guy, from the economy, rights, and race relations then anybody could imagine before he was elected. The guy is the biggest threat to this country.
X2. He's definitely not wrong.
-
U can all mock the income inequality issue but it is slowly destroying the US as we know it. It started when big, multi-national companies (with no allegiance to any country), started union busting in this country, which eliminated decent paying jobs for the average white man. Once the multi-nationals have fully co-opted our political system, US workers will be on par with the rest of the third-world workers that currently make everything we buy. The heads of the multi-nationals and their families will live in gated communities wherever they happen to reside.
You already see this happening in places like NYC, LA and DC. The only allegiance of the elites is to money and those who are like minded. They could care less about any national identity.
The days of the American middle class are numbered. The big corporations are literally KILLING the US economy. But it's not like we didn't see this coming.
-
U can all mock the income inequality issue but it is slowly destroying the US as we know it. It started when big, multi-national companies (with no allegiance to any country), started union busting in this country, which eliminated decent paying jobs for the average white man. Once the multi-nationals have fully co-opted our political system, US workers will be on par with the rest of the third-world workers that currently make everything we buy. The heads of the multi-nationals and their families will live in gated communities wherever they happen to reside.
You already see this happening in places like NYC, LA and DC. The only allegiance of the elites is to money and those who are like minded. They could care less about any national identity.
QFT!!!
-
You're not very sophisticated. All of the "dumocrats" I know earn 7-figure incomes (or close to it), went to elite schools, and live in neighborhoods where a 500 square foot studio apartment costs $750K and up. The system works for them and they want to keep it pretty much the way it's currently constituted.
Only an unsophisticated knave thinks there is any difference between the political parties. The only difference is what interests they happen to be representing at a particular time and who is funding the campaign (and it's usually the same people in most cases anyway).
QFT!!!
-
I'm tiring of u but I will continue a bit further.
Do u think the bankers at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et al., who all funded Obama's campaign and that of other Democrats (and all politicans, including Republicans) want their money taken away? No. They want more of it and they want what they already have protected.
Who do u think pays for political campaigns? The "average American"? Nope. It's the monied interests. The choices they give u (that's right they give u the choices, u don't pick them) will all look out for who got them there not some idiot complaining about overreaching government.
Obamacare is making your conservative heroes richer than the already are. They're all heavily invested in the healthcare/insurance industry which is going to be the biggest benefactor of this.
Dang Cholo, you're hitting the nail square on the head tonight!!
-
The days of the American middle class are numbered. The big corporations are literally KILLING the US economy. But it's not like we didn't see this coming.
Some of us saw it a little sooner than others, not because we're smarter,
...but simply because we have the advantageous of being outside of the USA.
When you're in the eye of the storm, it's not always easy to see the chaos swirling all around you.
-
If corporations and rich people payed more taxes, all of our problems would go away.
-
If corporations and rich people payed more taxes, all of our problems would go away.
an absolutely silly assumption.
-
an absolutely silly assumption.
Its syntax's classic brand of sly dry humor.
-
There is no income inequality among the masses in North Korea.
Do we want to be like North Korea?
Keep supporting the dumocrats and we will get there.
Actually there is and the gap is a lot bigger than in the US.
You should get an education Tony.
-
I'm tiring of u but I will continue a bit further.
Do u think the bankers at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et al., who all funded Obama's campaign and that of other Democrats (and all politicans, including Republicans) want their money taken away? No. They want more of it and they want what they already have protected.
Who do u think pays for political campaigns? The "average American"? Nope. It's the monied interests. The choices they give u (that's right they give u the choices, u don't pick them) will all look out for who got them there not some idiot complaining about overreaching government.
Obamacare is making your conservative heroes richer than the already are. They're all heavily invested in the healthcare/insurance industry which is going to be the biggest benefactor of this.
This man knows what he is talking about.
-
Actually there is and the gap is a lot bigger than in the US.
You should get an education Tony.
LMFAO I dont know if you thought that post was from me or just think that dario is my gimmick.
but to be clear I dont have nor do I need a gimmick to put moronic libtards like you back in your place.
-
LMFAO I dont know if you thought that post was from me or just think that dario is my gimmick.
but to be clear I dont have nor do I need a gimmick to put moronic libtards like you back in your place.
...nor do you need to put anyone in their place to believe you did. ;)
-
...nor do you need to put anyone in their place to believe you did. ;)
thank you albert, my interweb stalker...go back to your apartment now and live well you moron ;)
-
LMFAO I dont know if you thought that post was from me or just think that dario is my gimmick.
but to be clear I dont have nor do I need a gimmick to put moronic libtards like you back in your place.
Sorry my mistake :)
-
Sorry my mistake :)
-
Its syntax's classic brand of sly dry humor.
oops
my bad
-
oops
my bad
Lot off fuckups in this thread :P
-
If corporations and rich people payed more taxes, all of our problems would go away.
But seriously though, it couldn't hurt, I mean facebook is stashing billions away that they earned in the US, I don't like the idea of anyone not paying what's just.
-
But seriously though, it couldn't hurt, I mean facebook is stashing billions away that they earned in the US, I don't like the idea of anyone not paying what's just.
1. It could hurt, depending on the specific solution you have in mind. And anyway, even if it couldn't hurt, this doesn't seem to me to be a necessary or sufficient condition for adopting this (or any other) policy. Do you have any specific policies in mind?
2. It is the USG's above-average corporate tax rate that incentivizes corporations to send profits overseas in the first place. This benefits large corporations, because they have the resources to do as such, whereas smaller corporations do not.
3. Even with a specialized policy that specifically targets offshore profits, the after-tax corporate share of GDI (gross domestic income) is a whopping 7.1% (http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=52&904=1950&905=2012&906=q#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=52&904=1950&905=2012&906=q) -- there just isn't that much money to tax (and even less squirelled away offshore), contrary to many peoples' perceptions. So, I think it's fair to say that squeezing more money out of corporate entities would have a marginal effect on the nation's finances -- even if it didn't have any costs associated with it.
4. As for rich people, well, our tax system is currently more progressive than it was under Clinton (the Bush tax cuts made permanent for everyone but the rich + Pease limitations + PEP), and the wealthy are largely funding the government as is. This state of affairs seems 'just' enough for me. How about you?
I would be very surprised if the marginal utility of taking even more money from the wealthy and sicking the IRS on corporations abroad is higher than addressing the government's spending problem.
-
1. It could hurt, depending on the specific solution you have in mind. And anyway, even if it couldn't hurt, this doesn't seem to me to be a necessary or sufficient condition for adopting this (or any other) policy.
2. Ironically, it is the USG's above-average corporate tax that incentivizes corporations to send profits overseas in the first place. This benefits large corporations, because they have the resources to do as such, whereas smaller corporations do not.
3. Even with a specialized policy that specifically targets offshore profits, the corporate share of GDI (gross domestic income) is a whopping 7.1% (http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=52&904=1950&905=2012&906=q#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=52&904=1950&905=2012&906=q) -- there just isn't that much money to tax (and even less squirelled away offshore), contrary to many peoples' perceptions. So, without getting into the numbers, I think it's fair to say that squeezing more money out of corporate entities would have a marginal effect on the nation's finances -- even if it didn't have any costs associated with it.
4. As for rich people, well, our tax system is currently more progressive than it was under Clinton (the Bush tax cuts made permanent for everyone but the rich + Pease limitations + PEP), and the wealthy are largely funding the government as is -- this state of affairs seems 'just' enough for me.
I would be very surprised if the marginal utility of taking even more money from the wealthy and sicking the IRS on corporations abroad is higher than addressing the government's spending problem.
we dont like your kind around here, what with your liberal use of facts, ligic and reasoning.
Tax the rich more! fair share (unless you make nothing and pull 10x more than you've ever put in)! Corporations! Arrrrrggggg!!
-
What is your point? The government spending problem will never be addressed. The recent budget deal that Paul Ryan and the Democrats engineered is proof of that. The political class could not even live with the mild "cuts" brought about by the sequestration. Who is going to cut spending? That's laughable.
so whats y9ur solution? tax everyone 100% so that the government can attempt to sustain its ridiculous spending and waste? There is literally one answer... to cut spending. Thats it. There is no other way out really.
-
The government spending problem will never be addressed.
No one knows whether this is true, so your feigning certainty is unreasonable. And anyway, even if you're right, that doesn't preclude discussion of what the government ought to do all the same.
I myself think that some, but not all, of the necessary reforms will be installed in the aftermath of the next crisis, whatever form it may take -- just like some, but not all, of the necessary banking reforms were put into Dodd-Frank in the midst of the Great Recession. Such semi-satisficing in the midst of crises will perhaps be the new norm.
Recall as well that it is the relative amount of spending that needs to be reduced, not the absolute amount. In all probability, the debt pile will never be reduced to any significant degree, but that is immaterial. The average debt-to-GDP ratio during the profligate Bush years was 3.14%; so, spending needs to be reduced just a bit below that, assuming 3% average GDP growth. What about this is so clearly impossible to you?
-
What?! U are confusing debt and deficit.
No, I'm not. Each year's deficit is added to the debt. That's why we care about the deficit in the first place, hence my discussing it. Are you trying to be difficult? That said, I accidentally referred to the debt as the 'debt-to-GDP ratio' in my previous post, so I apologize if there was any confusion.
The values I discussed indicate that, with reasonable assumptions about economic growth, all that needs to happen for a sustainable fiscal course is that deficits stay a bit under their Bush-era average (since this will reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, albeit marginally, each year) -- something that doesn't sound "impossible" to me in the slightest, and something you still haven't properly argued cannot occur.
When one takes into account intra-government spending (money the government owes itself) the US' debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100%. This is unsustainable. And once Obamacare fully kicks in, combined with growth in other entitlement programs, not only will the deficit grow but the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to skyrocket completely out of control. Current projections have this beginning in 2016 and that is when the next crisis will occur.
Yes, the current path is unsustainable over the long-term. That isn't in question. However, (i) it remains to be seen how Obamacare will effect costs, and (ii) these projections assume nothing is done to address burgeoning government spending, the very issue we are discussing at present.
If the CBO projections are your main piece of evidence that the US fiscal position is insurmountable, you still have to present a proper argument that the government will in fact do nothing to curtail spending, since that's what the projections assume.
Please don't treat me like the rest of the dopes around here.
???
-
How will government spending be cut when no one in a position to do something about it is even proposing that we cut it? Even the recent budget deal pushes the "cuts" into the future, when the problem will be even worse (because of entitlement growth), in exchange for increased spending now. The US didn't get $17 trillion into debt by exercising fiscal restraint.
We're still in the midst of a tepid recovery from the worst crisis in decades, so it isn't reasonable to expect the requisite reforms to be instituted now. It's also the case that, as the CBO projections indicate, the USG's fiscal position will actually improve for several years before beginning the slow descent into unsustainability. It seems to me that these two incentives are enough to explain policymakers' current behavior.
Even so, the latest budget deal did not renew extended unemployment benefits, so the retrenchment is under way, slowly but surely.
I think it's reasonable to suppose the incentives will change when the next (less severe) crisis occurs, furnishing the needed political capital to institute spending reforms. They won't be anywhere near optimal, but they will be something -- there are an infinity of opportunities to cut spending in productive ways.
-
The US didn't get $17 trillion into debt by exercising fiscal restraint.
^
22 trillion and growing fast
-
The only allegiance of the elites is to money and those who are like minded. They could care less about any national identity.
Only your working class cares about 'national identity'. Or blue collar I believe it's called in the US. Or your Christian Conservatives (the low IQ lot that believes in magic and sky gods).
It's a ridiculous outdated concept in a global world. You either adapt to a changing world, or you starve whilst bleating for the good old times. Companies are global, markets are global, work forces are global. I chose to adapt, constantly educate myself and take opportunities where I see them.
If you're too inept to do the same, fuck you.
-
So now the failureinchief is preaching that government should tackle this issue, as if government has the solution.
Is it now a right for everyone to earn about the same despite the varying skill sets, education levels and effort? Is this what America is about and where in the constitution or any written work by the founding fathers does it support such idea?
What are the countries that have very little or no "income inequality"?
How about 'production equality'?