mcjwelles

Why does the GOP seem to favor income disparity, protectionism for the upper class and an auction system that replaces our elective process- even as they try to garner v**es from both poorer minorities as well as the working classes in general? Why does the Republican working class still support a party that continues to favor the wealthy at the expense of their own interests? Why does the GOP disagree that discretionary income is prerequisite to a robust economy?

We need to have a serious discussion as to why 'Wealth Redistribution' has become such a taboo word in our country. That would include progressive taxation, Estate tax on huge holdings, equal access to education, healthcare and healthy food, etc. Why did America choose a progressive democratic system over the Monarchy we seem to be reinstalling today?

moldyoldy

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Let's have a serious discussion.

Income disparity is at an all time high right now.

This is after 2 years of Democrat 1-party rule followed by 4 years of every GOP bill in the house being either v**ed down or not getting to be v**ed on at all.

Do you believe:
A) Democrat knew their policies would increase income disparity.
or
B) Democrats didn't know their policies would increase income disparity.
or
C) Democrats didn't care.


Redistribution punishes work and subsidizes sloth. By design that reduces the number of people willing to work, and take risks that create wealth.

That is a good reason to use in only as a last resort, and not as a first resort.

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

There are 93 million American workers who are NOT working today. They would be happy to just have some income! "Wealth redistribution" is patently unfair to all parties and creates more problems than it solves.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Simple. Money talks ( the USSC says so ) and common sense and common decency walk. We do NOT want to do what's right for everybody, that would be socialism, so we must take a feudalistic approach. You know, those with "stuff" own those who don't and they set the rules.

There MUST be a large gap in incomes, otherwise, there'd be too many fingers in the pie and that could be confusing. Their must be a minimum income though, otherwise, the t***sfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy simply wouldn't work, there'd be nothing to t***sfer.

It is the job of all levels of government to ensure a safe and fair t***sfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. Too much too soon would cause the demise of some of the peasants and that would be a poor investment strategy.

mcjwelles

What do you mean by 2 years of Dem 1 Party Rule? What do you mean 'every GOP bill v**ed down for four years?? Remind me of any GOP bills addressing income disparity (or much of anything else) in any but a negative way please.

A- virtually ALL economic policy bills have been tabled or v**ed down since 2011- remind me of any exceptions please- and don't get into ACA quite yet.... So how do you see the Dems having had much impact on our economic trajectory- other than job growth (for which the Dems can claim but little direct credit except by the recovering economy- for which they can claim a lot of credit). Their attempts at reversing income disparity have been uniformly blocked by the GOP. Did the GOP realize the effects of their 1 Term President Obstructionism that has undermined their credibility among their own constituents (most maligned Congress in history?)
B-The Dems have not seen if their policy can accomplish anything- virtually all bills blocked. GOP has simply not brought many of their own bills to the table in years. It's back on you guys I'm afraid.
C- Dems appear to care so much that they have had to resort to 'other means' to accomplish ANYTHING. But pause and read some of the many bills they did bring to the table- and compare with your own party.

As for your claim that redistribution stifles ambition, the evidence I see suggests quite the opposite: If a family works hard- often two jobs each parent- and can't make ends meet, let alone get ahead, that is hardly incentive to work- maybe sell coke but not work a career type job (the GOP won't discuss higher minimum wage). In this growing income/cost-of-living problem, many in these growing ranks of under-employed USED to be self-sufficient career folks who were laid off from the middle class by the Great Recession and may never get back up to speed in these, their latter years, bad times. Children then either get no adult/parental support- or there is the additional expense of child care (GOP refuses to discuss pre-K funding) at at least their own pay scale. State sanctioned disparity (GOP policy) in favoring the wealthy serves to enshrine that disparity- as we are seeing. The resulting lack of discretionary income- that is income after rent, food and the other necessities- serves to stifle consumerism and, then, manufacturing, retail business and economic growth. The wealthy remain largely insulated from all this. This is the GOP formula. It doesn't seem to work very well for any but the wealthy.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

The GOP doesn't, except in the minds of socialist l*****ts and the deadbeats wanting a free ride, .... and of course in the l*****t controlled main stream media and l*****t internet sites.

The GOP advocates a system where every man is free to work as much, and earn as much money, as he wants to. The GOP wants a system whereby every man is free to educate himself and pursue a career, or multiple careers, to earn all the money his heart desires.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Simple, no man wants to work hard all year and have the government forcibly take a large portion of the income derived from that labor, and give it to some deadbeat who refuses to work.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

I pick C, democrats don't care. Face it the wealth have done better under Obama than any time.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/obama-gives-95-of-wealth-increase-to-top-1-during-his-regime-even-as-he-dishonestly-demagogues-income-ine******y/

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Exactly the point. A family with both adults working and still spinning their wheels is exactly what those excessive taxes that support the deadbeats cause.

If the federal government would quit buying v**es for the democratic party with the tax money of the hardworking men paying the deadbeats of our society, ... the average family could finally get ahead and have money for some "discretionary spending."

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

A ticket to Russia isn't that expensive. Sounds like you'd be happy there.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

I would really like to understand where you get 93 million unemployed because of the following:
The current US population is 319,000,000 (roughly, since it changes every second)

1. With 82 million kids that cannot be employed full time that leaves:
237,000,000
2. Half that population is made up of women, why is that important? A Third of them are not employed full time, so now the working population is down to:
202,000,000
3. 58,000,000 retirees and disabled now leaves 144,000,000-so who is working full time:

Don't take this the wrong way, not everyone that's employable needs to or wants to work (such as my wife), a lot of people are under age or "over" aged.....so it isn't 93 million...unless like someone else posted here that they the population of the US was 798 million, but it isn't, so maybe you dress me down with better information than what I have found. In any given year, 18 million just makes sense...and I'm not suggesting that there are kids 70 year olds that aren't working it's just rare.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Yeah, like those bankers,brokers, and oother Wall St deadbeats who got billions in taxpayer-funded handouts after c***ting, stealing, and driving thousands including their own businesses into the ground, are back to business-as-usual- turning our economy into the world's largest casino? All the while producing nothing, except complicated "financial instruments" that allow them to keep gambling recklessly with America's wealth? Only to be back sucking on the government teat when they lose again? You talking about those socialists?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

My word, your ignorance knows no bounds, does it? He means 2009 and 2010, when Obama was president and the Dems were in the majority in the House and Senate. Moron.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

I just can't figure out what you're b***hing about. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barrack Obama, .... your heroes all, and all democrats, ... passed the Dodd-Frank law that, ... according to them, .... cured all problems in the financials markets. Everything is now perfect, according to them.