1
79
80

Income Inequality (i.imgur.com)

undue-influenceによる前の投稿

all 54 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]chemlabrat 14 ポイント15 ポイント 前

Ok this issue has been oversimplified in this cartoon. Income inequality advocates are not vying for everyone to have the same amount of wealth. You can still believe in capitalism while having an issue with income inequality. The reason being is because there will always be inequality in capitalism and everyone knows that. The actual problem arises when that inequality becomes so grossly out of proportion that it starts to hurt the middle class and the economy. In our current situation this is due to stagnate wages and the tax code allowing the richer with capital gains to be taxed at a lower rate than a middle class family. Not to mention the issue of hiding money and profits in off shore accounts. Under a fairer income inequality system, the rich can still prosper and the middle class can live comfortably. It just prevents the rich and über rich from running off with everything. If anyone is interested in this issue and has Netflix, I invite you to watch the documentary "Inequality for All" by former labor secretary Robert Reich. It will help you better understand true issue so as to have a conversation.

[–]thedrunkwanker 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Fully agree. Not only all of the above but income inequality can cause political instability because of a large dissatisfied population, greater likelihood of corruption, abuse etc.

I assume OP meant to post the cartoon as a joke even though it is still supportive of the Conservative cause.

[–]chemlabrat 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Inequality producing a dissatisfied population and political unrest is also true. Often times though people don't know where to direct their anger or even what the true source of the problem is and how to possibly fix it. Talking about the issue is difficult in conservative circles though because people often trot out the communist/socialist/Marxist comments (as can be seen in a comment below). Whenever that happens the person is arguing with rhetoric and propaganda as opposed to facts and sources and I can't take them seriously.

I really can't tell if OP meant it as a joke because some people really do believe that argument in the cartoon and many of the comments in here.

[–]Popular-Uprising-Libertarian Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Income inequality is such bullshit. The poor in the US have it much, much better just over the last 40 years. I was raised in a lower-middle class family and we had one 13-inch TV, no computer, no cellphones, no microwave, a Ford Pinto, no video-game consoles, and could afford to eat out (fast food) once a month or so. Sure, the "income inequality" was much less, but so was the standard of living for everyone.

I went over to a friends house last month that is classified as "working poor". He had an Xbox one, a 42" -inch TV, dishwasher, microwave, decent car, etc. All this and his family qualified for food stamps.

[–]elitistasshole 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Completely agree

[–]JarJ94Libertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Those are all very superficial ways of measuring someone's wealth and standard of living, and are more related to you friend's family's priorities with their money.

Additionally, technology progresses. I'm a little confused about your 40 year comment, why 40? Did you grow up 40 years ago? Because in that case, of course you didn't have a computer or a cellphone, and that TV proably costed mroe than his 42".

[–]Palamn 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I´m quite fed up with Republicans complaining about how a rich president can attack income inequality. I think you guys need to realize that the problem lies within your completely broken voting system. One needs to be rich in the US to even consider running for office. You need to tour the whole country create TV Ads and more. Since this kind of stuff isn´t subsidized like in my country you mostly have to pay for it yourself or at least have enough to survive if the donations don´t suffice. If Obama wasn´t rich he wouldn´t be president^ go capitalism

[–]wretcheddawn 3 ポイント4 ポイント 前

I don't care that he's rich, I care about the hypocrisy. How much money does Obama personally give to the poor / charity? It's not much at all, yet he's willing to spend everyone else's money on a far more indirect solution. If he really thinks this is a problem, then he should put his money where his mouth is.

[–]SaladProblems 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

The point stands that to have a loud voice you usually have to be wealthy. If a rich person speaks out about income inequality you attack them as a hypocrite. Therefore no one with power can challenge the status quo.

Even if you can't stand Obama, surely you realize your approach to the debate is more of a logic trap than an argument.

[–]wretcheddawn 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I'm not attacking him for being wealthy, I'm attacking him for being a hypocrite. If he gave 20% of his money to charity, he'd still be rich, but he wouldn't be a hypocrite when he asked other people to do the same thing.

[–]gth829c 14 ポイント15 ポイント 前

The president and first lady reported donating $150,034 – or 24.6 percent of their income – to 33 charities. That's a slight dip from the previous year, when the Obamas donated more than $172,000. The largest contribution last year was a $103,871 donation to Fisher House Foundation, which provides humanitarian services to military members, veterans and their families. Other charitable groups that received donations from the president for $5,000 or less include the American Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the United Negro College Fund.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/obama-charity-donation_n_3085858.html

Might want to rethink your argument there.

[–]Whatah 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I find it sad that this comment got so many downvotes.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -4 ポイント-3 ポイント 前

Yeah he got real charitable when he decided to run for president. From 2000-2004 he donated about 1% of his income to charity -- and most of it went to Reverend Wright's racist church. Biden donated a grand total of $364, or about 0.2% of his charity.

Perhaps you ought to rethink your argument.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

[–]gth829c 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

Come on man. As his income increased, so did his giving, which is what OP was saying he should do if he wants to push that policy. Don't move the goalposts when you see facts you don't like. We don't need to get into the "when he decided to run for president" argument unless you want to bring up Romney's tax returns also.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -3 ポイント-2 ポイント 前

Oh so because he was barely scraping by on $250,000 a year is why he gave less than 1% of his income to charity almost all of which went to a racist church?

Ok, let's look at Mitt's tax returns. From 1990 to 2009 he donated on average 13.5% of his income to charity -- and that was after he paid 10% to state income tax and 14.5% to federal income tax.

[–]gth829c 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

So Obama's church is wrong, but the Mormon Church is okay? What about to Pat Robertson and CBN? Is that 10% tithe okay? And we don't know what Romney actually gave before 2010 because he never released those tax returns.

This is why I said you are moving the goal posts all over the place. You are pulling arguments out of your rear to try and make whatever point you want.

The original argument was Obama should be giving 20% if he wants to fight for income equality. The fact is he is actually giving more than that.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -4 ポイント-3 ポイント 前

The fact is he never gave a shit about charitable giving until he decided to run for president.

And yes, Obama's church is wrong and the Mormon Church is ok. I don't recall Romney's pastor saying God Damn the US of KKK and that 9/11 was America's chickens coming home to roost.

[–]SaladProblems 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

The law would require him to pay the same amount as everyone else in his income bracket.

[–]wretcheddawn 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

If you're rich and believe that giving money to the poor solves income equality, why would you make a law requiring you to give that money rather than giving that money?

If he really thought it would be effective, or the right thing to do, he would already be doing it, but he's not.

Obama's not really the only person who's done this, so I suppose it's not right to only point the finger at him, there have been many rich people that have "stood up" for income equality, despite that they have millions of dollars and could huge difference if they wanted to. But that's not what they want, they're pandering to the ideals while doing absolutely nothing about it until absolutely required to.

[–]IvoryLGC 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

If you're rich and believe that giving money to the poor solves income equality, why would you make a law requiring you to give that money rather than giving that money?

What you're proposing is treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Token donations don't do shit if the current system still ensures vast income inequality. I would rather see them spend their time and leverage their positions to change that, than some pathetic hand-out you're proposing.

  • Millenial

[–]wretcheddawn 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

What he's proposing is treating the symptoms rather than the disease, in fact it makes things worse. The real solution is to focus on the middle class who drive the economy and not the outliers. The fact that he isn't willing to make even a token effort shows that he knows the solution isn't viable. He just wants Republicans to shoot him down so he can further the propaganda about the "party of No".

[–]puddboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

pretty sure Obama wasn't rich when he ran for President the first time

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

He made a couple million on his book Dreams of My Father. Before that he wasn't rich. Although, he did have a very privileged childhood: his mom was vice president of a bank and we went to elite private schools from kindergarten to law school.

[–]YamiHarrison -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

I agree, which is why all these massive multi million dollar donations to democrats (far more than the GOP gets) needs to stop

Also these burnout millenials want more money at free cost, anything else is insincere

[–]undue-influence[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

Actually, when Obama entered the white house he had about as much money as I do.. He's since grown his pile 8-10 times.. mine has languished and is smaller.

And I'm not rich. Becoming prez is what made him 'rich'.

[–]puddboy 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

His net worth will be $100 million 5 years after office. Gore and Clinton get $150,000-$250,000/speech, in addition to serving on various corporate boards in exchange for vast stock options. I don't have an issue with that, but yeah, Obama is gonna get paid son.

[–]undue-influence[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

No shit.. all those politicos end up rolling in it.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Dreams of My Father was a best seller. Obama made a couple million off it.

[–]undue-influence[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

and you're point is? His net worth was $1.3 Million at the end of 2007. A nice chunk of change, but not really 'rich'.. Now he's worth between 10 and 12 million.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

My point is that you were wrong in saying he wasn't rich when he entered the White House. He had $1.3 million and was earning $250,000 a year.

[–]undue-influence[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Yeah, we just have different standards of what constitutes 'rich'.

[–]blatherskiterReagan Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I guess so. Obama defined it as making $250,000 a year... exactly how much he made until his book sales landed him a couple mil.

[–]zephz -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

Capitalism wasn't the fault of that. It is the federal government itself and its elitism, straying far from the free market, that has created the "system" of needing massive amounts of money to campaign.

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" -3 ポイント-2 ポイント 前

Obama got rich being a community agitator

[–]smokeybehr -4 ポイント-3 ポイント 前

It's that he's attacking people who have worked for their money, when he himself has had everything handed to him, and never had to "work" a day in his life. In 4 years, he went from "community organizer" to state senator, to US Senator, to President. He's also making people dependent on government, essentially turning everyone into slaves.

It's not about equality of outcome, which is what Progressives/Marxists/Leninists/Communists want, it's about equality of opportunity. Conservatives want everyone to have an equal chance to succeed or fail on their own merits, and not because of some artificial construct put forth.

[–]jimIII -2 ポイント-1 ポイント 前

1025 days to go. Dear God keep us above water until then!

[–]wretcheddawn 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

What really worries me is who gets elected next.

[–]puddboy 3 ポイント4 ポイント 前

I don't know who will get elected in 2016 but I can guarantee you they wear pants.

[–]2Talloperator -4 ポイント-3 ポイント 前

He goes on so many of them I think the term "vacation" no longer applies. But I guess I would want to get away all the time too if I was being manhandled by corporations on a daily basis.

[–]Salnax 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I thought Bush had more vacation days per year? Do you know where I can find a count for this sort of thing?

[–]smokeybehr -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

If you count the days in Crawford, he didn't. When he was there, he operated just as if he was in DC, except he'd go out and work the ranch when he was done with briefings and his other presidential duties.

[–]wretcheddawn -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

He's the president. If he's getting "manhandled by corporations" it's because he allows it.

[–]2Talloperator -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

...Does he wretcheddawn? Does he?

[–]BoboTheTalkingClown -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

So, the president shouldn't have his own private plane and shouldn't go on vacation? I'm not sure what the argument here is...

[–]LewdCrudeChewedFood -5 ポイント-4 ポイント 前

Why is Brobama white?