Dems plug more equitable wealth distribution, does GOP even give that lip service?

[michal1980]

And... Duh-vert!

Repubs discuss inequality with attitudes, platitudes, accusations & head in the sand Denial.

Bootstraps! Revered Job Creators! Lazy mooching Welfare Queens! Shiftless inner city Blacks! Kick out illegals so Americans can have those really shitty jobs! Just say no to birth control for poor people! Move to North Dakota where there are plenty of jobs!

Basically, its reads like this- I got mine, so the rest of you should just fuck off & die. Quietly, of course.

I think that really needs more Benghazi, the right wing political equivalent of Frank's Redhot Sauce. They put that shit on everything.

Glad to know you can still vomit up your talking points. Please dont turn over when you start chocking on them.

 

[michal1980]

dems pay lip service their idiot base belies them. They make wealth inequality worse.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not the job of government to "distribute" wealth, try earning your own money for once.

Government sets the rules whereby wealth & income are created & distributed.

Having arrived where we are today by way of trickledown Reaganomics perhaps we need to re-evaluate, change the rules to better defend working people. It wouldn't be the first time.

Otherwise, we'll be ruled by the Divine Right of Capital & runaway accumulation of wealth & power by a very, very few. It threatens the foundations of egalitarian democracy & the welfare of the Nation.

 

[Jhhnn]

dems pay lip service their idiot base belies them. They make wealth inequality worse.

Obama is not dictator. Repubs have held a blocking position since the 2010 election & before, really. They like it this way. It's the culmination of 35 years of relentless effort. It's what they want & they won't give it up w/o a fight.

It's not like we can even raise the minimum wage, let alone raise taxes or stop the bleeding of jobs & capital offshore is it? Of course not. We can't even maintain headcount for decent paying govt jobs.

If Repubs were honestly concerned with inequality they'd address it in some fashion other than through derision for their supposed inferiors & promises of getting ahead in a rigged system.

 

[Bitek]

No, CATO just published an article that calls for elimination of EITC.
http://www.cato.org/publications/ta...-income-tax-credit-small-benefits-large-costs

The right is still doubling down on trickle down, even though we have seen the results of 35 years of trickle down already. But these people don't learn, they believe.

IOW:

Fuck the poor!

 

[BoberFett]

dems pay lip service their idiot base belies them. They make wealth inequality worse.

Obama is not dictator. Repubs have held a blocking position since the 2010 election & before, really. They like it this way. It's the culmination of 35 years of relentless effort. It's what they want & they won't give it up w/o a fight.

It's not like we can even raise the minimum wage, let alone raise taxes or stop the bleeding of jobs & capital offshore is it? Of course not. We can't even maintain headcount for decent paying govt jobs.

If Repubs were honestly concerned with inequality they'd address it in some fashion other than through derision for their supposed inferiors & promises of getting ahead in a rigged system.

Democrats are all about facts, until the facts don't line up with their preconceived notions. At that point, the only answer is "Republicans fault".

And what exactly is the point of this thread? Are Republicans obligated to "pay lip service" to populist rhetoric that they don't believe is actually a problem? Is the point of this thread to convince Democrats not to vote for Republicans? It's pretty well established that people who vote Democrat are against wealth inequality and people who vote Republican don't care. Pointless thread is pointless. Might as well start a thread about whether or not vegetarians are going to pay lip service to the benefits of eating meat.

 

[Bitek]

dems pay lip service their idiot base belies them. They make wealth inequality worse.

Hmm, it's like something happened in between 2007 and 2010 that destroyed a bunch of wealth for middle income families.

Rather odd.. Just what could that be? IDK, but must have been Obama. #ThanksObama

(Otherwise, let's ignore the trend line running upwards since the 80s)

 

[BoberFett]

Hmm, it's like something happened in between 2007 and 2010 that destroyed a bunch of wealth for middle income families.

Rather odd.. Just what could that be? IDK, but must have been Obama. #ThanksObama

(Otherwise, let's ignore the trend line running upwards sunset the 80s)

And yet under Obama with all of that stimulus and saving the economy, the wealthy have sprung right back and increased the inequality to beyond where it was under Bush. How did that happen?

 

[Knowing]

I guess we're ignoring that the insurance companies and banks gave a whole bunch of money to Obama. I'm sure that was just incentive for him to not do something worse than make sure they make all sorts of money.

Can someone remind me who our last attorney general was, and then tell me who established the paradigm of "too big to jail." Then remind me of the name of the current attorney general and what bank she was proud of securing a pittance of a settlement from. Then there's this f--kin' guy.

I really don't get how the democrats are insisting that they aren't sold out to wall st when actions that they have taken have benefited wall st so significantly. Remember, it's the S&P 500 that indicates that the economy is going gangbusters, not the record low labor participation rate or wages that for some strange reason refuse to rise. Perhaps they think they're pulling a fast one like when they were certain that PPACA wasn't a tax until it was. They fooled me, I never saw that coming.

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet under Obama with all of that stimulus and saving the economy, the wealthy have sprung right back and increased the inequality to beyond where it was under Bush. How did that happen?

You quoted me & the answer earlier, remember?

Like you said, Repubs don't care, just so long as they're getting theirs.

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess we're ignoring that the insurance companies and banks gave a whole bunch of money to Obama. I'm sure that was just incentive for him to not do something worse than make sure they make all sorts of money.

Can someone remind me who our last attorney general was, and then tell me who established the paradigm of "too big to jail." Then remind me of the name of the current attorney general and what bank she was proud of securing a pittance of a settlement from. Then there's this f--kin' guy.

I really don't get how the democrats are insisting that they aren't sold out to wall st when actions that they have taken have benefited wall st so significantly. Remember, it's the S&P 500 that indicates that the economy is going gangbusters, not the record low labor participation rate or wages that for some strange reason refuse to rise. Perhaps they think they're pulling a fast one like when they were certain that PPACA wasn't a tax until it was. They fooled me, I never saw that coming.

So, uhh, if you see growing inequality as a problem, make some suggestions. Tell us what can be done about it.

Or just blame Democrats.

 

[Knowing]

So, uhh, if you see growing inequality as a problem, make some suggestions. Tell us what can be done about it.

Or just blame Democrats.

Prosecute.

Don't halt trading or hold special trading sessions when the "wrong people" are making money. Allow companies and banks that are terrible at making money to fail and go in to bankruptcy like all the little people.

 

[waggy]

LOL lip service? you mean by both parties?

Only one i think might do anything is sanders. We have a long line of presidents on both sides that give it lip service and nothing more.

 

[Jhhnn]

Prosecute.

Don't halt trading or hold special trading sessions when the "wrong people" are making money. Allow companies and banks that are terrible at making money to fail and go in to bankruptcy like all the little people.

That doesn't address inequality at all.

 

[Knowing]

That doesn't address inequality at all.

You actually being serious here, broseph?

 

[Jhhnn]

You actually being serious here, broseph?

Yes. Explain how prosecuting banksters or allowing systemic failure of the financial sector puts a bigger slice of the pie on the little guys' plates.

 

[Knowing]

As opposed to the system we have now where we don't prosecute the banks for breaking the law or allow insoluble businesses to fail in exactly the same way as insoluble individuals.

Well, imagine a world where you could commit crimes against your fellow citizens but if you got caught you'd only have to pay a fraction of your ill gotten gains and you never went to jail or even admitted guilt. Do you suppose you could accumulate wealth in such a scenario? Would it even be hard?

To make it even easier, imagine you could take all of your accumulated wealth and light it on fire. The only consequence of this would be your missing photo albums because your status as a "market maker" ensures that you can't even be perceived as broke. Hell, you could even try to sell your neighbors on them subsidizing your 80's hairband front man lifestyle. Literally all you have to do is insist that you're smarter than them and therefore should spend their money instead of suffering from your own failure.

 

[Jhhnn]

As opposed to the system we have now where we don't prosecute the banks for breaking the law or allow insoluble businesses to fail in exactly the same way as insoluble individuals.

Well, imagine a world where you could commit crimes against your fellow citizens but if you got caught you'd only have to pay a fraction of your ill gotten gains and you never went to jail or even admitted guilt. Do you suppose you could accumulate wealth in such a scenario? Would it even be hard?

To make it even easier, imagine you could take all of your accumulated wealth and light it on fire. The only consequence of this would be your missing photo albums because your status as a "market maker" ensures that you can't even be perceived as broke. Hell, you could even try to sell your neighbors on them subsidizing your 80's hairband front man lifestyle. Literally all you have to do is insist that you're smarter than them and therefore should spend their money instead of suffering from your own failure.

Your desperation is showing. None of that offers a way to reduce inequality.

If you don't want to talk about it, most Righties don't, then don't talk about it. Pretend this thread doesn't exist rather than trying to drag it off topic.

You don't have to pretend to care about it.

 

[Knowing]

Your desperation is showing. None of that offers a way to reduce inequality.

If you don't want to talk about it, most Righties don't, then don't talk about it. Pretend this thread doesn't exist rather than trying to drag it off topic.

You don't have to pretend to care about it.

I'm still not a righty.

I find it difficult to believe that the guy who wants to go back to New Deal price fixing can't reconcile the fact that having our "competent" regulators do nothing and then have our justus department do nothing while banks run roughshod over everyone all the time has allowed the financial industry to take over the economy to everyone's ruin but theirs.

I wonder what could be causing it? ¯\(°_o)/¯ o O (i unno, lul)

But, since you clearly aren't following along, allow me to give you this link and this quote from that link to make it abundantly clear:

However, it is probably impossible to avoid the redistributive consequences of monetary policymaking. As this article will explore, households differ in many dimensions — including their assets and debt, income sources, and vulnerability to unemployment — and monetary policy affects all these factors differently.

I could do this for days.

Really, there's so much material here that I'm not sure how you can look at yourself in the mirror.

So, again, if someone who appears to want to spend as much of the public money as he could get his hands on couldn't see the benefit in taking more money from criminal banks then I'm not sure that you have a rational definition of wealth or any idea where it comes from.

As a pre-final thought, I'll hold the republicans responsible for too big to jail. Accordingly, I'm entirely righteous in holding the democrats responsible for their own shenanigans.

In conclusion, how is discussion that is on topic ... off topic?

 

[x26]

How many of Obama's proposed domestic policies were passed by Congress?

Everything he wanted in the First 2 years that Dems Controlled the House and the Senate and the Executive.--Not much besides Healthcare and Multi Trillion Dollar Stimulus.

 

[Muse]

LOL lip service? you mean by both parties?

Only one i think might do anything is sanders. We have a long line of presidents on both sides that give it lip service and nothing more.

If I have the opportunity, I'll vote for Sanders.

 

[fskimospy]

Prosecute.

Don't halt trading or hold special trading sessions when the "wrong people" are making money. Allow companies and banks that are terrible at making money to fail and go in to bankruptcy like all the little people.

While I'm totally down with prosecuting people, you would think that the liquidationist viewpoint would have gone out with the Great Depression.

Things that feel good emotionally are often not good things economically.

 

[Bitek]

And yet under Obama with all of that stimulus and saving the economy, the wealthy have sprung right back and increased the inequality to beyond where it was under Bush. How did that happen?

Is it really not that obvious? What did you think would happen when the middle population has most of their wealth tied up in their house and 401k when the housing and stock market crashes?

The wealthy, by their nature, had a much broader base of assets, no immediate need for liquidity, and stood in a perfect position to snap up the assets being dumped in a fire sale. This was entirely predictable.

There are two parts to your complaint.

1. Stimulus and fed policy stopping the down turn.
By all measures is worked, and has proved to be the most effective response on the globe to the 2008 crisis.

2. Inequality increase.
Again, to the point above, how would you stop it? By stopping the transfer of assets away from the middle classes.
Govt can't really stop stock sales, but it did try to stem the foreclosure by forcing write downs by the banks, moratoriums on foreclosures, and refi loans through the GSEs.

To this, wall st and the right wing had such a shit fit the tea party was birthed to stop it.

So tell me what the tea party planned to do to correct it with their electoral wins since 2010? No one said shit about inequality then, just bailouts, debt, and stopping spending.

They've been successful in drawing to a stalemate with Obama. In doing so, we've got exactly the result that was predictable, and apparently what the right wing voters wanted. It's high time to complain about it now.

 

[child of wonder]

Some of the Republican presidential candidates have proposed means testing and increasing or eliminating the income limit on SS taxes. That seems like wealth redistribution to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Everything he wanted in the First 2 years that Dems Controlled the House and the Senate and the Executive.--Not much besides Healthcare and Multi Trillion Dollar Stimulus.

Dems lost their filibuster proof Senate majority when Ted Kennedy died August 25, 2009. That's been pointed out many times but you seem to prefer repetition of falsehood.

You also forgot to mention Dodd-Frank which brought the most significant changes to financial regulation since the 1930's.