If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   The income gap between poor and rich in the United States has grown more dramatically under President Obama than Bush or Clinton. This guy is a lousy socialist   (news.investors.com) divider line 341
    More: Interesting, President Obama, United States, income inequality, Emmanuel Saez, wealth redistribution, socialists  
•       •       •

1100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 01:03:04 PM

Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.
 
2013-07-31 01:03:33 PM

Aristocles: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.

Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why would the dirty, racist democrat party members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

You're not making sense.


Why did Northern Democrats support the Civil Rights Act more than Northern Republicans did?



The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)


The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)
 
2013-07-31 01:04:32 PM

Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


"Were".

Why would the dirty, racist democrat party

DRINK!

members become Republicans in order to pass the Civil Rights Act?

1) If Lester Maddox were on the ballot, I might care that he was a Democrat.
2) It's the Republicans pushing "voter ID" and other neo-Jim Crow shenanigans.
 
2013-07-31 01:04:53 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Vote Republican.
 
2013-07-31 01:05:33 PM

Aristocles: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

This is true, however, Capitalism will make everyone more prosperous. There's really no need to peek into someone else's bank account.


apparently, prosperity in America means owning a refrigerator.


TFerWannaBe: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

No. Capitalism does not make any guarantees about anyone's success. It *can* work for everyone, but doesn't necessarily, no matter how hard they work at it.


nope, no promises at all.  there are some perks to being born into wealth in a Capitalist society, just like the royalty of old.  And it is depressing to see someone who is a hard motivated worker (who may lack higher education) get held back by wage caps & the ideas that;

Employee: "ya know, i work hard for this company, i've seen our profits raise year after year and feel i deserve a raise."

Employer: "this is what you are worth. don't like it? you can start over somewhere else, i appreciate your hard work and devotion to making me money but i'm not here to make you money"
 
2013-07-31 01:06:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

The KKK guy the Democrats elected and kept in office was a Republican?  No, you are wrong again.

So why did the South turn from a Democrat stronghold into a Republican stronghold in the 1960's then?


Because Obama, that's why.
 
2013-07-31 01:06:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: Just to put the retarded "Democrats were the party of Jim Crow" nonsense to a rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69-31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71-29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73-27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70-30%).

By party

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80-20%)

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

So you found the one Democrat that was against the Civil Rights Act. Good jerb.


None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.
 
2013-07-31 01:06:36 PM

Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?


Yeah, they're gonna go ahead and filibuster that idea.
 
2013-07-31 01:06:57 PM
Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.
 
2013-07-31 01:08:36 PM

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


Reality hurts doesn't it.

So why were Northern Democrats more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans then?

/still waiting for my answer
 
2013-07-31 01:08:51 PM
But I was assured that the tax hikes on the rich would make the rich stop earning money, since the US government was punishing their success!!!!!
 
2013-07-31 01:08:52 PM

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.


So how does that fix income inequality?
Create jobs?  You mean like all of those shovel ready jobs or the cash for clunkers?  That may improve unemployment but does nothing for income inequality.
Of course white collar crime should be prosecuted.
Capping interest?  Sure.  Just remember then that fewer people will qualify for credit cards, which may not be a bad thing.  But that does nothing for income inequality.
Forgiving student debt for work, sure.  But how does that increase their income?

Rehashing the OWS talking points is always fun since it keeps pointing out that none of that has anything to do with income inequality.
 
2013-07-31 01:09:08 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?


From Wiki:  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the proposals and actions of the Congress."

If I remember correctly, Thurmond became a Republican shortly thereafter.  Hmmm, let me check on that.

Oh, yes.  Here it is (also from Wiki):  Thurmond represented South Carolina in the from 1954 until 2003, at first as a and, after 1964, as a. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism and opposition to the Civil Rights bill of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater.

Now, if what you claim is true, why would a Democrat opposed to the Civil Rights Act become a Republican because of the Civil Rights Act?  Try to come up with something logical.
 
2013-07-31 01:09:35 PM

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?
 
2013-07-31 01:09:42 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


To be fair, this isn't really a problem that Obama's made any effort to address.  He's take the initiative to deal with a few of the minor symptoms in a half-assed manner with things like HCR, but note that his justice department hasn't put a single person away for securities fraud over the blatant ratings falsifications that were the immediate reason for the crash in 2007/2008, or even pursued such charges against any kind of meaningful player.  That's something well within the power of the executive, to actually enforce existing laws.

He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too.  His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.

//The fact that his even pretending to give a fark makes him the better candidate on these issues still makes me despair a bit for our government.
 
2013-07-31 01:09:51 PM

Outrageous Muff: Dusk-You-n-Me: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there

Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.

Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.


If progressives are so inept at implementing their agenda, why are you guys so pants-pissing afraid of them?
 
2013-07-31 01:10:24 PM

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.


This coming from someone who continues to have the mistaken belief that 'socialist = communist'.  You might want to open an economic theory book sometime and realize the terms aren't interchangeable.

Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.  They were more authoritarian capitalists than anything.
 
2013-07-31 01:11:10 PM
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.



Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?
 
2013-07-31 01:11:54 PM

eraser8: Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.


And what party filibustered the act for over 14 hours?
 
2013-07-31 01:11:55 PM

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


I'm sorry to have to let you go.  I gave you a week, hoping that you would find your voice and hit your stride, but you really suck at this.  Go study the work of Bloodninja, Willy on Wheels, or  David Mikkelson back in the old days, or Fark's own CDP.

Your efforts just don't measure up.  Come back with a new alt once you've learned how to troll properly.

[PLONK]
 
2013-07-31 01:12:40 PM

Dinki: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it

Role in it? WTF does that even mean?


I mean Capitalism is like a Caste system, although the difference being there is a minimal opportunity for advancement.
 
2013-07-31 01:13:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.


Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?


Not with these shiatlords.
 
2013-07-31 01:13:35 PM
eraser8 to tenpoundsofcheese : From Wiki:  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator (D-SC)

Goddammit, I hate Fark's comment system.  The Wiki article read, "The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): 'This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.'"

And..."Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism and opposition to the Civil Rights bill of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater. "
 
2013-07-31 01:13:39 PM

Aristocles: eraser8: Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.

And what party filibustered the act for over 14 hours?


Mrtraveler01: So why were Northern Democrats more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Northern Republicans then?

Still waiting for an answer

 
2013-07-31 01:13:59 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:


Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.


you win the "Stupidest Thing Said on Fark Today"
congratulations.
 
2013-07-31 01:14:19 PM

Jim_Callahan: He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too. His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.


The CFPB and the nearly half a billion dollars it has recovered for consumers isn't nothing.
 
2013-07-31 01:14:48 PM

Lionel Mandrake: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.



They know this but asking them to quit the charade and try on some intellectual honesty for a change is an exercise in futility.
 
2013-07-31 01:14:58 PM

Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?


That's why I'm so confused why IBD would care about this. Usually they're too busy kissing Wall Street's ass to notice.
 
2013-07-31 01:15:19 PM

weddingsinger: Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.


That is clearly an unsustainable trend.  We can't keep funneling all the wealth to ultra wealthy.
 
2013-07-31 01:15:36 PM

Dinki: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?


Mr. Mrtraveler01 stated that his post was going to "put an end" to folks making the factual statement that the democrat party is the party of Jim Crow laws. I asked my question because he didn't follow up his claim with any pertinent information. Perhaps he was confused.
 
2013-07-31 01:15:40 PM

Jim_Callahan: He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too. His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.


Other than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , which ,ya know, kinda wouldn't exist without Obama. Or the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which, for all it's flaws,  also would never got signed by a republican president.
 
2013-07-31 01:16:04 PM

Aristocles: eraser8: Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.

And what party filibustered the act for over 14 hours?


Parties don't filibuster.  Senators do.

But, please, explain to me why Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party in protest to the passage of the CRA if the Republican party was so very much pro-CRA?  Seems like an odd thing to do, doesn't it?
 
2013-07-31 01:16:22 PM

pdee: Teiritzamna: Its almost as if the power to make law is vested in another branch of government.  A branch that has shown its inability and unwillingness to actually do anything . . .

So I'm sure you let everyone here know the the economic collapse we suffered through right before Obama took office was also that branch's fault.

No it was W's fault and his alone?

It's like religious people.  500 people die in a fire and 1 survives unharmed and its time to thank God for saving the 1.


It's almost like you make shait up. Nobody said it was W's fault alone. If anything I'd blame Clintion and the deregulation lobby empowered by Congress for legislating that oversight was a bad idea.
 
2013-07-31 01:17:34 PM

Mrtraveler01: Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?

That's why I'm so confused why IBD would care about this. Usually they're too busy kissing Wall Street's ass to notice.


They sound very concerned.
 
2013-07-31 01:17:53 PM

Lochsteppe: /Not sure what to think of someone who would so casually wave away the free will of most people on the planet in favor of accepting a role in a system they didn't design, don't thrive under, and have no say in. Capitalism is not supposed to be a religion; it's just an economic system.


isn't it weird? you would think that things wouldn't have been able to advance to the inequality that we have today but, here we are & people still go to work struggle to make ends meet & the only motivating factor to enact change is to vote in a political system that is created specifically to benefit the wealthy of our society.

i am starting to think we deserve to be where we are since we aren't doing anything to change the circumstances.
 
2013-07-31 01:18:20 PM

eraser8: tenpoundsofcheese: The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?


Now, if what you claim is true, why would a Democrat opposed to the Civil Rights Act become a Republican because of the Civil Rights Act?  Try to come up with something logical.


WTF are you talking about?
Richard Russell led the filibuster.
He remained a Democratic Senator until he retired in 1971
Try some logical learning.

the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russel (D-GA). Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
 
2013-07-31 01:19:07 PM

Aristocles: Dinki: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?

Mr. Mrtraveler01 stated that his post was going to "put an end" to folks making the factual statement that the democrat party is the party of Jim Crow laws. I asked my question because he didn't follow up his claim with any pertinent information. Perhaps he was confused.


Democrats in the South supported Jim Crow laws. Democrats in the North support the Civil Rights Act.

What part of this is hard for you to comprehend?

"But...but...Byrd"...congratulations you found the one Democrat from the North that was against it (and he's from West Virginia), still there were 29 Northern Republicans in both Houses that voted against it too. Why do the 29 Republicans get a pass but the 1 Democrat doesn't?
 
2013-07-31 01:20:28 PM

Fart_Machine: Mrtraveler01: Pincy: When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?

That's why I'm so confused why IBD would care about this. Usually they're too busy kissing Wall Street's ass to notice.

They sound very concerned.


I'm still amazed at that newspaper.

I've seen it at newsstands but I've never seen anyone actually buy or read a copy. Their existence is a mystery to me.
 
2013-07-31 01:20:52 PM
Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.
 
2013-07-31 01:22:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.


So why did Northern Democrats support the Civil Rights Act more than Northern Republicans?

/no one seem to be able to answer this question
 
2013-07-31 01:22:56 PM
So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that President Obama is a 1964 Democrat who hates black people.
 
2013-07-31 01:23:47 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?


Sure.

The simple fact that we allowed rents to be conflated with capital, and then decided to give such money makers preferential treatment through the tax code, encouraging even more rent seekers to leech money out of the system, well, we farked ourselves.
 
2013-07-31 01:24:15 PM

FeFiFoFark: tenpoundsofcheese: SovietCanuckistan: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Occupy Heavy Machinery:


Okay, that is about what I expected from a liberal.
Romney and others are paying the share that the US Government has required. The government obviously determined that that is fair.   If you don't like that, go complain to the government, not Romney.

you win the "Stupidest Thing Said on Fark Today"
congratulations.


Why?   You guys whine that Romney paid what the government asked him to, but give Rangel and Geitner a pass for not even doing that.

Why is it right to criticize Romney for paying his taxes?  If you don't like what he paid then the anger should be directed at the government, not Romney.
 
2013-07-31 01:24:45 PM

meat0918: Lionel Mandrake: Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?

Sure.

The simple fact that we allowed rents to be conflated with capital, and then decided to give such money makers preferential treatment through the tax code, encouraging even more rent seekers to leech money out of the system, well, we farked ourselves.


Shh...we're not supposed to point that out.

That's Class Warfare donchaknow.
 
2013-07-31 01:25:04 PM

I_C_Weener: So, what I'm getting out of this thread is that President Obama is a 1964 Democrat who hates black people.


Vote for Ike!
 
2013-07-31 01:26:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is it right to criticize Romney for paying his taxes? If you don't like what he paid then the anger should be directed at the government, not Romney.


True. But the thing that got me is that even though the tax code already favors him, Romney was upset that it didn't favor him enough.
 
2013-07-31 01:26:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.

So how does that fix income inequality?
Create jobs?  You mean like all of those shovel ready jobs or the cash for clunkers?  That may improve unemployment but does nothing for income inequality.
Of course white collar crime should be prosecuted.
Capping interest?  Sure.  Just remember then that fewer people will qualify for credit cards, which may not be a bad thing.  But that does nothing for income inequality.
Forgiving student debt for work, sure.  But how does that increase their income?

Rehashing the OWS talking points is always fun since it keeps pointing out that none of that has anything to do with income inequality.


I'll ignore the fact that you're disregarding the inequality problem itself and focusing on a narrow definition of income.

How do controls on bankster abuses help the middle class gain footing?  People that get to save their money instead of using it to pay off interest on loans can invest it, generating wealth and income.  If you think the income gap is bad, look at the wealth gap.

Stopping bankster abuses of the middle class and the system?  See previous answer

How do middle class jobs close the wealth gap?  I'm not dignifying that question with a response.
 
2013-07-31 01:27:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: WTF are you talking about?


Once again (from Wiki):  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): 'This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.

Now, it's linked so you don't have to act like an ignoramus.

And, as I asked another Farker:  please, explain to me why Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party in protest to the passage of the CRA if the Republican party was so very much pro-CRA?  Seems like an odd thing to do, doesn't it?

If you were smarter or more interesting, your act might come off as clever.  But, really, it just comes across as being desperate and dishonest.

And, I don't really have a dog in this partisan hunt, as I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
 
2013-07-31 01:28:04 PM
Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?
 
2013-07-31 01:28:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.


That's a very nice anecdote but it doesn't just cancel out the many other congressman and untold amount of voters who did switch over. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report