stop bein so ANGRY against the rich

I think we have the right to be pissed off when a single family controls more money than 42% of the country.

We are not insisting on class warfare, we are demanding smaller gaps between the classes, if that devolves into class warfare, its probably due to the gaps growing, major gaps between the classes has lead at times to revolutions.

good let them have it

poor ppl dnt buy assets

the rich do

theres nothing wrong with gaps

u r jealous of the rich and wanna make everyone poorer as a result by stealing their wealth

the gaps were issue b4 becus the poor got poorer

poor r leading good lives now

Edited 5/15/2016 00:47:40

mmmmmmmmm

kazzoooooo!

More accurately, the poor lacked the funds to buy assets. Secondly, the poor are actually getting poorer, while not to the degree a revolution would be launched(at least not yet), there is definitely increasing unrest. I'm not jealous of the rich, I happen to be a child of a people whom happen to be sitting well in the top 5% in income. I just view both income and wealth gaps within the US, especially the wealth gap to be just extreme, unnecessary, and crippling to the economy, as the poor are more likely to spend than their collective wealth than the rich, so there is more liquid capital, which expands the economy.

they lack the funds because they r reckless spenders

america is a consumer society

it all about spend spend spend

ppl on food stamps buy cigarettes with them

any money left over is spent on shoes, expensive clothes, and other unnecessary spending

poor ppl are financially irresponsible

that why they dnt buy assets

and the rare moment they do buy assets is when they lose it in all in stock market bubbles or real estate

they are getting poorer because wages are going down. and oh wait! they dnt buy assets so they cant protect themselves from declining wages

why? cus poor ppl dnt hold skills that are valued by society

so ofc wages are gonna go down and they will b poor

instead of blaming the rich for their peril they should look at the mirror

Edited 5/15/2016 01:09:23

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. I could destroy that argument but I feel like it would be a waste of time if you're just fucking with us

destroy the argument

debate the issues not the person

So you are basically okay with the Marx Cycling economy. Congrats, you just invited the revolutions of 1848 at minimum to your door.
Secondly, everyone has assets in real estate or the stock market, and some poor people just got unlucky.
Thirdly, poor people may lack the skills to make them valuable to society, in which case reducing the cost of college would be hugely beneficial in getting them back into that category, which is another thing bernie sanders supports.

Declining wages as the rich get richer, especially CEOs, and other managers...Am I the only person who sees a major discrepancy in this?

Also, go read this: http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/26/savings-the-poor-can-save-too/
and this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/opinions/mccaffery-wealthy-taxes/

So you are basically okay with the Marx Cycling economy. Congrats, you just invited the revolutions of 1848 at minimum to your door.

You're getting as bad and cocky as Smedley is.

Secondly, everyone has assets in real estate or the stock market, and some poor people just got unlucky.

In America? Really? I don't think so, I think it's something like 5%. Either way, it was their risktaking that got them what they got.

Thirdly, poor people may lack the skills to make them valuable to society

Can you wield a broom? Congratulation, you have skill valuable to society.

Declining wages as the rich get richer, especially CEOs, and other managers...Am I the only person who sees a major discrepancy in this?

You can't advocate giving money by those who took those risks and lost by taking away money from those who took some risks and won - that'd just be taking away the choice of risk from folk.

I'm for socialism, but the poor better be actually poor, which there are none in America.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:28:00

ok lets reduce the cost of college. there are 2-3 million open jobs that ppl arent going to

200k open manufacturing jobs too

bunch of nuclear technicians going to retirement

blue collar in huge shortages


also college is already affordable for poor ppl. theres FAFSA, bunch of scholarships, affirmative action, and reasonable student debt terms. however making it even more affordable is good 2


nice article on whether the poor save. ok i was wrong about that

your second article leaves out the fact that rich ppl bribe politicians to rig the system in their favor. plus they invest lot of their money in assets that dont get taxed the same as wages. they also have a diverse source of income

poor ppl on contrast are taxed higher cus of their wages and their wages go down cus they dnt hold skills that are valued by society

Edited 5/15/2016 01:40:09

In America? Really? I don't think so, I think it's something like 5%. Either way, it was their risktaking that got them what they got.

You got cash in the bank? if yes, you are in the stock market in the US, and most people in the US happen to have cash in the bank.

For the third point, I forgot to include the word more, sorry.
You can't advocate giving money by those who took those risks and lost by taking away money from those who took some risks and won - that'd just be taking away the choice of risk from folk.
I'm advocating for limiting the impacts of that risk, which may sound like removal of choice of said risk, but it isn't. I'm not a Marxist advocating for a classless society, I'm rather arguing for smaller gaps in between the classes.

I'm advocating for limiting the impacts of that risk, which may sound like removal of choice of said risk, but it isn't. I'm not a Marxist advocating for a classless society, I'm rather arguing for smaller gaps in between the classes.

You're advocating for taking away 20% that risk. 100% would be communist. 50% is socialist.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but if even the bad hand of that risk doesn't even make anyone poor, then why "limit" that risk, as you say?

there are 2-3 million open jobs that ppl arent going to
Mostly due to lacking the technical skills for such positions, which could be much more easily achieved by reducing the cost of college, especially community/technical colleges, as well as removing unnecessary licensing.

also college is already affordable for poor ppl. theres FAFSA, bunch of scholarships, affirmative action, and reasonable student debt terms. however making it more affordable
Despite all this, college costs are at all time high, even adjusting for all these benefits and inflation. While it is technically affordable(http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/issue_brief_is_college_affordable_july_2012.pdf), I would argue that the costs are still excessive.
http://www.ed.gov/college

rich ppl bribe politicians to rig the system in their favor.
Another reason to support sander's, he is advocating for the overturn of citizen's united, which allows for much large influence of elections by the rich

plus they invest lot of their money in assets that dont get taxed the same as wages. they also have a diverse source of income
Things the poor generally lack the ability to due to their economic position.

but if even the bad hand of that risk doesn't even make anyone poor, then why "limit" that risk, as you say?
because historically there has been revolutions when too large of a gap emerges between the economic classes, and an economic crisis occurs(look at the French revolution, by that era's standards, no one in France was poor, however there is revolution following an economic crisis in 1788-1789.) before the gap is resolved. While I don't expect revolutions to arise in the US any time soon, and happened to be too young in 2008 to actually understand any of this, I still fear the possibility of open militaristic revolution in the US during the next recession, which has nearly occurred in the past, but generally adverted by a change in gov't, which I would expect, and a shift in the gov't too radically to the right would be disastrous for me, as I would probably get persecuted by a McCarthy-esque gov't in less than a minute.

Mostly due to lacking the technical skills for such positions, which could be much more easily achieved by reducing the cost of college, especially community/technical colleges, as well as removing unnecessary licensing.

also college is already affordable for poor ppl. theres FAFSA, bunch of scholarships, affirmative action, and reasonable student debt terms. however making it more affordable
Despite all this, college costs are at all time high, even adjusting for all these benefits and inflation. While it is technically affordable(http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/issue_brief_is_college_affordable_july_2012.pdf), I would argue that the costs are still excessive.
http://www.ed.gov/college

the current system can be worked around with. however we are pretty much in agreement. find ways to get poor ppl good paying jobs. and to do that is to make education even more affordable

trade schools however have a bunch of agreements u can do. like not paying for it until u land a job

Edited 5/15/2016 01:56:02

Japan you're blatantly lying gtfo you creepy kike commie.

the current system can be worked around with. however we are pretty much in agreement. find ways to get poor ppl good paying jobs. and to do that is to make education even more affordable

trade schools however have a bunch of agreements u can do. like not paying for it until u land a job

Yep. I wonder what the reaction would be to expand that trade school clause to cover all universities.

Jew

because historically there has been revolutions when too large of a gap emerges between the economic classes, and an economic crisis occurs

There are never revolutions if the folk are (well) told that their government is great. There are revolutions if there are folk dying on the streets, but I mean, not in Ireland, nor in Ukraine, just in France (which, yes, definitely by today's standards they would be poor - annoyed and literally starving by being taxed on bread?). There's not going to be a revolution in America, for America's lived through far worse. The closest there was, was when Smedley Butler (the real fellow) stopped the fascist overthrow, and that revolution started from the top-down. Any revolution today probably would be started by foreign agents (see Donetsk).

a shift in the gov't too radically to the right would be disastrous for me, as I would probably get persecuted by a McCarthy-esque gov't in less than a minute.

Rightness in itself would not do that, just authoritarianism and more government. Anyhow, you have the freedom to move to lefter Britain or even lefter Malta (if Libyan refugees give you a fetish).