Obama Preaches Stimulus to Europe and Practices Austerity at Home

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]

I really feel bad for people that think this way.

No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]

No in the real world the concentration of money is the concentration of power. The power is used to benefit those who have the power mostly at the detriment of others. Bank CEO’s who’ve had billions in bailouts but want to cut social spending. Typical! It is okay for their businesses to be socialized but others have to fend for themselves.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A conservative college professor(scarce!)made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

  1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

  2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

  3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

  4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

  5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
    [/quote]

First off Obama resembles nothing even close to socialism so your proof and the students are complete idiots. When your premise is wrong so are your arguments that follow from that false premise.
[/quote]

Ummmmmm eliminating reward for working harder and making more money?

That’s EXACTLY what he is doing.
[/quote]

Actually he is pandering to the ultra wealthy.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]

I really feel bad for people that think this way.

No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]

No in the real world the concentration of money is the concentration of power. The power is used to benefit those who have the power mostly at the detriment of others. Bank CEO’s who’ve had billions in bailouts but want to cut social spending. Typical! It is okay for their businesses to be socialized but others have to fend for themselves.[/quote]

What do you suggest is done to right what you believe is wrong?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]

I really feel bad for people that think this way.

No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]

No in the real world the concentration of money is the concentration of power. The power is used to benefit those who have the power mostly at the detriment of others. Bank CEO’s who’ve had billions in bailouts but want to cut social spending. Typical! It is okay for their businesses to be socialized but others have to fend for themselves.[/quote]

What do you suggest is done to right what you believe is wrong?[/quote]

More regulation and higher taxation would be a start.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]

I really feel bad for people that think this way.

No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]

No in the real world the concentration of money is the concentration of power. The power is used to benefit those who have the power mostly at the detriment of others. Bank CEO’s who’ve had billions in bailouts but want to cut social spending. Typical! It is okay for their businesses to be socialized but others have to fend for themselves.[/quote]

What do you suggest is done to right what you believe is wrong?[/quote]

More regulation and higher taxation would be a start.[/quote]

More regulation on what?

Who would pay the higher taxes?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]

I really feel bad for people that think this way.

No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]
Regulation on the finance sector and corporations having to pay tax instead of hiding it offshore, would be a good start.

No in the real world the concentration of money is the concentration of power. The power is used to benefit those who have the power mostly at the detriment of others. Bank CEO’s who’ve had billions in bailouts but want to cut social spending. Typical! It is okay for their businesses to be socialized but others have to fend for themselves.[/quote]

What do you suggest is done to right what you believe is wrong?[/quote]

More regulation and higher taxation would be a start.[/quote]

More regulation on what?

Who would pay the higher taxes?[/quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

More information on the inequality of the income gains.

[/quote]

Hmmm… Does there studies factor in mobilty between earning percentiles?

Do you understand why that is important?[/quote]

Who has the most gains and who has lost the most? So much for upward mobility.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]

I really feel bad for people that think this way.

No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]
Regulation on the finance sector and corporations having to pay tax instead of hiding it offshore, would be a good start.

No in the real world the concentration of money is the concentration of power. The power is used to benefit those who have the power mostly at the detriment of others. Bank CEO’s who’ve had billions in bailouts but want to cut social spending. Typical! It is okay for their businesses to be socialized but others have to fend for themselves.[/quote]

What do you suggest is done to right what you believe is wrong?[/quote]

More regulation and higher taxation would be a start.[/quote]

More regulation on what?

Who would pay the higher taxes?[/quote]
[/quote]

Was this your answer Zep?

“Regulation on the finance sector and corporations having to pay tax instead of hiding it offshore, would be a good start.”

If so, can you be more specific on the regs?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

More information on the inequality of the income gains.

[/quote]

Hmmm… Does there studies factor in mobilty between earning percentiles?

Do you understand why that is important?[/quote]

Who has the most gains and who has lost the most? So much for upward mobility.

[/quote]

Did you even read this? Or did the title tickle your fancy so you figured it actually supported your argument.

The different performance of financial asset and housing markets from 2009 to 2011 explains virtually all of the variances in the trajectories of wealth holdings among affluent and less affluent households during this period. Among households with net worth of $500,000 or more, 65% of their wealth comes from financial holdings, such as stocks, bonds and 401(k) accounts, and 17% comes from their home. Among households with net worth of less than $500,000, just 33% of their wealth comes from financial assets and 50% comes from their home.

So, pardon me while I go back to reality… Because this doesn’t even address any single one of your points.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

More information on the inequality of the income gains.

[/quote]

Hmmm… Does there studies factor in mobilty between earning percentiles?

Do you understand why that is important?[/quote]

Who has the most gains and who has lost the most? So much for upward mobility.

[/quote]

Did you even read this? Or did the title tickle your fancy so you figured it actually supported your argument.

The different performance of financial asset and housing markets from 2009 to 2011 explains virtually all of the variances in the trajectories of wealth holdings among affluent and less affluent households during this period. Among households with net worth of $500,000 or more, 65% of their wealth comes from financial holdings, such as stocks, bonds and 401(k) accounts, and 17% comes from their home. Among households with net worth of less than $500,000, just 33% of their wealth comes from financial assets and 50% comes from their home.

So, pardon me while I go back to reality… Because this doesn’t even address any single one of your points. [/quote]

All this says is where the wealth came from not that they didn’t get the lions share of the wealth accumulated in that period.