Published: Wednesday, April 16 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Mike Richards:You probably give more to charity than the President
and I probably do as well. But that's up to us and that's up to him.
Why do all the wealthy liberals fight tooth and nail to keep all of their money
and to accumulate more, while attacking capitalism? They will demand $20-40
million per movie but attack overpaid doctors and hospital CEOs who make far
less money. For all of their money, what do they truly contribute to society to
earn such wealth? Are they not truly the ones socialists should be attacking,
instead of those who contribute far more for their incomes? I am not
a hypocrite, so I do not complain or care if they make so much, even if it makes
it so I can't afford to see their movies. It is their right to earn what
they can. But don't complain what I earn, which is a small fraction of
theirs, while praising them for being supporters of the socialist cause. If they
were true believers in their espoused doctrine, they would live much more
humbly, and give much more of their wealth away.It is simple,
don't complain that those who earn less than you should pay more, unless
you are willing to sacrifice your wealth and live at the same level.
@jsfWithin 5%? Oh well then my answer is...there is none that even
exist (successful or failed) and you're grossly overstating what people who
have problems with income inequality are after.
To "Roland Kayser" lets look at what you said and think about it deeper.
You said that from 1940 to 1980 we had greater income equality than we
currently do. What has changed? Is the nation as a whole more or less
regulated? Does the government have more or less power over your life than it
did before 1980?If we had greater income equality when there were
few regulations and the government had less power, what does that say? An open
minded person would say wow, that sure makes socialism look like a dead end
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "Roland Kayser" lets look at
what you said and think about it deeper. You said that from 1940 to 1980 we had
greater income equality than we currently do. What has changed? Is the nation as
a whole more or less regulated? Does the government have more or less power over
your life than it did before 1980?======== The nation as
a whole is more regulated - environment, Food, Water, Air, etc.BUTIs less regulated in regards to MONEY.Taxes were
LOWERED on the uber-wealthy.Trickle-down economics was a lie, it has
FAILED.LESS Government regulations regarding Outsourcing and
Off-shoring. Banks have become Much LESS regulated.The repeal
of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. and Republicans have
started 3 wars with no way [or fore seeable intent] to pay for them.
To "Open Minded Mormon" what do yu mean money is less regulated?Banks and investments are more regulated than they ever have been at any
other time in history. You forget that banks had added regulations added during
the 1940's when FDR began to push for easier credit. Then again when we
disconnected the dollar from the gold standard.Here are some of the
bank acts that ADDED regulations since 1933:Banking Act of 1935,
establishing the FDIC as a permanent agency.FDIC Act of 1950
expanded the power of the FDIC.CRA of 1977 added regulations
madating lower lending requirements.The Truth in Savings act of 1001
added regulations regarding interest and fees for savings accounts.The Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987 regulated the amount of time a
bank could hold a check before deposititing it into an account.The
Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 added
additional regulations to banks in their reporting to federal agencies.Just look at the CFR and the number of regulations that have apply to banks
alone. That doesn't include rules from government agencies.What do wars that Demcorats voted for have to do with anything?
The comments I see defending Frank's misunderstanding that it is unbridled
capitalism that is killing the middle class is nothing more than an offensive
front on those of us who have worked hard for a generation only to see wages
stagnate, benefits eroded, and the cost of living skyrocket, and a constant
attack on the paid "insurance" we call Social Security, yet the overall
wealth of the nation is as great as it ever has been. Please, someone explain to
me why wealth distribution from the bottom up by gouging the working poor is so
good for the economy.
Socialsim in Utah means candidates other than Eagle Forum hand picked people.
Redshirt.... not so fast.You said "If we had greater income
equality when there were few regulations and the government had less power, what
does that say?"Depends on what is being regulated? For
example, lets take transportation. During the period in question we had a
highly regulated transportation system, both in the air and in ground transport.
Since the 80s it has become highly deregulated. And as such, average wages
have fallen. The number of companies competing, has also fallen.International trade is far less regulated now... and look at the impacts that
has had on jobs. NAFTA has had a huge impact.So you can't make
blanket statements that we are more or less regulated. In many aspects we had
parts of our economy much more regulated before the 80s.
To "UtahBlueDevil" but we have more airlines now than we did in the
1980's. In fact, if you look at a list of US airlines we have MORE large
airlines now than we did in the 1980's. Yes wages have fallen, but that
shows you how overpriced the regulations were causing.I think that
your examples only show that with fewer regulations, things only get better.Look at NAFTA. Once you cut regulations for trade between the US and
Mexico, the Mexican economy began to grow a lot. The income inequality between
the US and Mexico DECREASED once there were fewer regulations.Thanks
for helping to prove my point.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments