Make choices...lol, you mean horde what they can squeeze out of their workers? When a CEO makes 300-400% more than his lowest paid worker then he his taking advantage of that worker. He is stealing from that workers labor by not paying a fair wage for his labor.
You love getting bitch slapped around these threads don't you. You do understand that the contract upon hiring dictates pay and in a free and open society you are paid what you accept right? If you as an employee are worth more than you move on or else accept your pay, socialism and nannyism take away those choices. But hey, intelligent free thinking people are incapable of that decision on their own according to you, right? Do let us know when you are ready to join us in adult land.
That kind of disparity creates wage gaps and social unrest as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. This kind of wage gap has never been so prevalent as it is now.
I want to nominate this for asanine discredited talking point of the century. No part of that statement is even remotely true, so do us a favor and retire that tripe will you.
What's wrong with getting back to a little less disparity?
Apparently you've never seen the wage scale from the industrial revolution, but hey, if you advocate going back in history.....whatever.
Conservatives always want to turn the clock back to the good old days, but in the good old days we had regulation and shame.
The good ol' days, as you like to call them represent when the government of the U.S. followed the rule of law of the United States, you are advocating changing the system to make yourself and likeminded group thinkers feel good about yourselves.
And of course as I pointed out, you conservatives seem to think that a CEO getting a little less will go to people who won't work.
Typically does.
Naturally you skip over all the people who are working but struggle to make ends meet because their wage hasn't increased proportionally with the CEOs or inflation or lost their job because the CEO wanted to make MORE money by shipping that job to cheaper labor overseas.
Do you want some french cries with that little wah-burger of yours.
So instead of a decent wage with benefits they have to take a lower paying job or two to try and make it up.
Last I checked you don't HAVE to do anything of the sort in a free society.
Obama NEVER said we need to take from the rich and give it to people who won't work, he said we need to (I'm paraphrasing) take a little off the top (ie. go back to the rates in the past, like under Reagan) and increase everyone else so that they can afford to buy the things the being sold which keeps the economy going.
It's still theft, no matter how flowery the language, but I guess you would say someone who mugged you was just "taking a little off the top"
When consumers can't afford the good or services being sold we end up where we are now.
I thought you said earlier that materialism was bad. So it's good when it justifies theft? Or is it just good when people buy goods with other people's earnings?
This Christmas sucked for retailers... why? People don't have money to spend. Give the money to the people at the top so that they can create more jobs over seas is a losing cycle.
Most of that money you are bitching about comes bulk assets, which means budget money is lost, this means people will be budgeted out, it's basic economics.
Yeah sure, and Joe the not so much a plumber was going to buy his bosses business... :roll:
That was the plan.
So let me make sure I understand this, you get all bent about me making assumptions about you and then you turn around and make assumptions about me... :doh
You make it so easy.
I am aware of who HPL is. Your claim that his populist position was a political ploy to get votes and not a real concern for the poor is nothing but rightwing pessimism and slander. Got any proof of your claim?
I live in Louisiana, so I know the history, we are still suffering from Long politics, need proof, visit the state.
And what would cause people to start losing jobs? Oh because the CEOs and BoD want to maintain THEIR income so they will cut their work force instead of their own compensation?
They are the bosses, so it's their decision, and guess what, the little guy gets pinched, whether you like it or not that is reality.
Hmmm... Instead we should just let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until there is a French Revolution here in America?
Why don't you actually see what taxation does to a household budget before you start spouting off on who's keeping the little guy down.
Good plan for society you have there. Seems to me like we've been trying it your way for quite some time and it looks like it's ****ed things up pretty good.
Good try, we haven't practiced constitutional free market economics in this country since the early 1900's, the problems mainly started after Wilsonian democracy.
In other words, go ahead and take from the middle class and the poor instead? By means of lower wages and benefits? How enlightened...
If you're gonna say in other words, at least grasp the original one's, you totally missed the point.
And if that system proves to be inadequate and people starve and die like in other countries, then what? Seems like we went down that road before which is what prompted Welfare, SS, medicare, etc. or did you have a plan B for when plan A fails... again.
:roll: Wellfare rolls increased since "The Great Society" and poverty increased, so obviously your sides little programs don't work.:doh