- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 27,204
- Reaction score
- 13,299
- Location
- CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You're missing a simple point. Even if stagnant...US incomes are still higher than most of the rest of the world.
we don't give tax cuts to those companies.
however maybe if we made business environment more hospitable then they wouldn't be moving overseas to begin with.
Is there a corporate tax break that ships jobs overseas? | PolitiFact
yet another lie told by the left.
Not third world. First world.
Right.
We're still the best, so why try to be better?
What a great argument.
You're missing a simple point. Even if stagnant...US incomes are still higher than most of the rest of the world.
Right.
We're still the best, so why try to be better?
What a great argument.
I already addressed that. If our incomes are stagnant Europe and Asia will catch up. In my mind, if you are standing still you are really falling behind because everybody is moving forward.
Also, I don't understand why you would choose stagnation over healthy economic growth for the middle class. Doing this will take strong technological development, good education, low taxes and regulations, and moderate income inequality.
Say's the guy who likely wishes we were more competitive with chine for jobs, lol.
strawman arguments will always be strawman arguments.Please. As if minimum wage is the reason. Not to ruffle your skirt, sister, but the EPA is a BIG reason, and hey. why not, right? Just bulldoze our environment here in the US for tidy profit, no bug deal that has no historical reference of back firing, right?
strawman arguments will always be strawman arguments.
this has nothing to do with what I posted. please go back read and understand.
yes the US has become hostile to businesses. they are moving to more friendly businesses environments.
more so under this administration. now the EPA is attacking the airline. that is all they can do is try to shut businesses down instead of building them up.
the cost in jobs and business growth is huge.
This country was founded by rebelling against an aristocracy. We have built a new aristocracy, ensuring that the rich are very very rich and stay that way across generations, while poverty is inherited and the lower middle class has little chance to move up. Of course that troubles us. It is antithetical to everything we believe in. Unfortunately, we try to pretend that this problem doesn't exist and many people oppose measures to equal the playing field because they don't want anything holding them down when they become rich.
Because those that are privileged and powerful and have the means to more heavily influence the government put themselves in a protected position from small competitors and heavily skew the competitive field.
TRANSLATION: 'I dismiss your facts and figures because I want to believe what I want to believe.'
In Sweden most children are born to unmarried women and it doesn't seem to be degrading Sweden.
The fact is that everyone except for the top 1% have been economically stagnant or lost ground over the last 30 years. That can't be simply explained by accusing the bottom 99% of being lazy.
Are you taking corporations? Because there are laws against monopolies. As far as the average person who's just trying to get ahead, the income gap has very little importance. Why should I care how much someone else makes. Unless this is all fueled by jealously.
So what if they catch up?
When you're talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor....there should be a reason to do so.
"Fair" is not a reason...."need" would be.
Americans as a whole can support themselves.
At some point, even the leftest of ideologues need to realize that there is a difference between need and want.
You guys aren't pissed that the poor have it bad....you're pissed that some don't have it bad. If you're taking money from those that have "too much" and giving it to those that have less simply for the sake of doing it....you're (society) committing theft.
The American condition is actually better than in most other places in the world. You guys need to put away the torches and pitch forks and try to figure out how to earn your way to the 1% rather than trying to get the govt to give their money to you.
"Inequality" doesn't trouble me in any way, shape, form, or fashion. There's no rational reason for it to trouble anyone.
This country was founded on by rebelling against an absolute central authority that taxed it relentlessly, on the basis that all men are equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
You and yours want to build the same thing, only you think it's somehow better when it doesn't involve any kind of a monarch. It isn't.
Is there an active effort to keep the 99% from becoming a 1%
You don't care about prosperity or American exceptionalism? Do you want your children to be better off than you? Do you care about anything?
Here is a choice. Take your pick:
A. Stagnation for the middle class.
B. Strong growth for the middle class.
What is your preference?
When did I talk about this? What post? Where did I say that I support socialism?
My reason is "Better." If we can make America better why not do so? The way income is being distributed is morally wrong and is keeping the middle class from achieving its potential. We can be doing better.
Sure most of us can, but so can Mexico. Mere survival is easy, actually being the best takes work and fair laws.
If "need" is all that is important than there is no need to ensure that we stay a first world country because we can obtain our needs by being a second world country. I want America to have both needs and wants. I want America to be the most technologically advanced, the most prosperous nation in the world with both the most of what we need and want.
Is this a response to someone else? I never mentioned taking money away from people and giving it to the poor. Taking money away from the successful and using it to fuel a welfare state is a really bad idea and won't help anybody.
Just take a look at Europe.
Again, I don't support the welfare state. I actually support completely scrapping welfare and severely cutting social security.
So your solution to all this is for everyone to be in the 1%. The problem is that only a limited number of career fields allow people to do this.
If everyone tried to be a doctor for example, there would be too many doctors and the demand for every individual doctor would fall. This would greatly reduce earning for doctors and create high unemployment for them making the medical field no longer a route to the 1%.
If everyone tried to create a small business there would be too many small businesses and the free market would weed out most of them.
The reality is that there are a limited number of seats for executives, doctors, or small business owners, and there will always be a need for janitors, engineers, nurses, and teachers. It is great to encourage people to try to achieve more but the hard reality is that not everyone is going to be rich. So we should make sure that the middle class and the poor are treated fairly because most Americans are going to fall into these groups no matter what.
Do you think everyone can become rich?
Everyone willing to educate themselves and put in the work...coupled with sensible fiscal choices can.
"Better"? How is taking what someone earned and giving it to someone that didn't earn it, specially when it's not actually necessary....."better"?
Is there an active effort to keep the 99% from becoming a 1%
I didn't ask if anyone become rich. I asked if everyone can be richer. Like every single person in the US together. Is it possible with the right amount of work. Please give me a practical answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?