quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The bush tax cuts are republican entitlements...

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
“The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all of the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon the house-rents, therefore, would in general fall the heaviest upon the rich and in this sort of inequality, there would not perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more...than in that proportion.”

Adam Smith wrote that in The Wealth of Nations. However, it's a stretch to compare social and economic conditions in 1770's Scotland to the United States in 2011.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
“The necessities of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all of the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon the house-rents, therefore, would in general fall the heaviest upon the rich and in this sort of inequality, there would not perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more...than in that proportion.”

Adam Smith wrote that in The Wealth of Nations. However, it's a stretch to compare social and economic conditions in 1770's Scotland to the United States in 2011.

you need to study inflation.  "generally" speaking if you subtract inflation a gallon of milk costs as much today as it did then.

what is failing is the wages, they do not keep up.

there is a reason for it though.  its not pretty either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The bush tax cuts are republican entitlements...

Oh REEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY?!!  Well, by all means... please do share your irrefutable, scientifically proven evidence that Republicans have been the SOLE beneficiaries of the "Bush Tax Cuts" –- as ONLY THAT would make it a "Republican Entitlement", instead of just another Lefty/Lib LIE by you. 

I’ll wait... though I'm-a-guessin' you’ll come up short –- as usual. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

fr there was a short period there a dollar was equal to a dollar in around 1933.

if you put a million bucks in the bank, was paid 6% interest paid a modest 20% on profits for taxes took it all out in 2009 you would have how much after deducting inflation?

yeh about 600,000

now ask yourself who is collecting that "monetary" inflation?  

Those in the 1% easily shield themselves from it.  the rest of the world gets to bend over and smile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I did warn you, Aynne.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

This can explain why Albert Pujols will make more money in one at-bat than an entire village in Swaziland

Nope...stupidity explains that... said a St Louis Cardinal fan...me

Cardianl red blooded Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
You are missing the premise of the thread. These guys often move from one highflying job to the next, no matter how badly they fail. They play fast and loose with shareholders money until they come a cropper and then just move in. If you look at the financial crisis alone, the same names keep appearing over the last 25 years. Some jump from government, to industry, to the City and back again, however they have screwed up. The guys running the Treasury now Geitner and Summers (if still in office), screwed up under Bush and are employed under Obama. More`s the pity.

This is why I've been watching the MF Global fiasco with such interest. There's no argument that Jon Corzine did anything "productive" or "successful" with the company. He leveraged it 44 to 1, bought high-risk Italian and Greek debt and drove the company into bankruptcy. Along the way they also raided their customer accounts and stole money from the segregated private accounts. If he somehow manages to walk away from the trainwreck unscathed (and/or into another "highflying position") it pretty much indicates that the sole criterion for success in our current economy is sufficient high level connections.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

You ask what income inequality means to me. Income inequality to me means that opportunities and laws are skewed toward the upper class (and I don't mean the comfortably living people who feel the need to tell a less fortunate man to go away and make something for himself.) I mean laws and exceptions are skewed in favor of the filthy rich. If that weren't true, then why have no banksters on Wall St. been called out for the illegal activities of bundling and selling bad investements knowingly. Does anyone think the avg Joe would be able to set up a scam like that, brag about it, and still be around walking the streets freely today...still making his billions? Why do people start whimpering when talk about leveling the playing field comes about, that people (politicians, who are bought) start crying that if we fuck with the rich people too bad, they'll take their money and blow this country. I say good riddance to them if they do go, because we don't need players like that on board anyway and as Americans, we WILL find another way...a better way, of making it work. Below is a chart that reflects which bracket of earners make the laws. You tell me honestly if you think the favor of the law is for the rich or the "others"?

[image]local://upfiles/752855/48728F3ED4184F24B2904654BCC6E671.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

but it's not at all income inequality, since by definition, the assumption is that both (or all) players have some level of equality but for their income.

Lookie? We arent dealing with a text book definition, but how its being applied at this time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

You ask what income inequality means to me. Income inequality to me means that opportunities and laws are skewed toward the upper class (and I don't mean the comfortably living people who feel the need to tell a less fortunate man to go away and make something for himself.) I mean laws and exceptions are skewed in favor of the filthy rich. If that weren't true, then why have no banksters on Wall St. been called out for the illegal activities of bundling and selling bad investements knowingly. Does anyone think the avg Joe would be able to set up a scam like that, brag about it, and still be around walking the streets freely today...still making his billions? Why do people start whimpering when talk about leveling the playing field comes about, that people (politicians, who are bought) start crying that if we fuck with the rich people too bad, they'll take their money and blow this country. I say good riddance to them if they do go, because we don't need players like that on board anyway and as Americans, we WILL find another way...a better way, of making it work. Below is a chart that reflects which bracket of earners make the laws. You tell me honestly if you think the favor of the law is for the rich or the "others"?