9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

[cancel2 2022]

Does this seem about right or is it exaggerated?

[Lowaicue]

Does this seem about right or is it exaggerated?

You beat me to it.

[Jarod]

Wow, is that true? Powerfull.

[007]

Anti American propaganda.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

*Sigh* I am so sick of this stupid "wealth inequality" meme. Do you fuckwits just not comprehend the basic nature of life or something? If you plant a tree in a good location with proper water and soil, sun and nutrients, do you expect it to grow stronger, faster and better, than a tree planted in a less desirable location with inadequate water, soil, etc.? Of course you do, only an abject idiot would think that trees planted in the undesirable location should be as big and strong as the others.

People who are wealthy an have amassed fortunes, are generally going to do better than poor people who have nothing. For the same basic reason the tree in the good location will do better than the tree in the poor location. Now, we could haul the soil from the healthy tree to the poor tree, but if the poor tree was planted in a bad location, the "soil redistribution plan" just won't work. The same basic principle applies to "wealth redistribution." We can take money from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood, but Robin Hood is fantasy. In practice, this only results in weakening the rich, it doesn't really help the poor. No poor person has ever been made wealthy by making rich people poorer.

Now, the people who have wealth, are also generally who start businesses and provide jobs to people who don't have wealth. So, if we hurt those people financially, what do you suppose is the ramification? Come on, I know you can get your retard brain to figure this out, if you try! The answer is simple, you effectively hurt the poor people who depend on the jobs from rich people, who have cut new jobs because they can't afford it anymore, because you raised their taxes too high. When this happens, what are the dynamics of wealth distribution? If a poor person loses their job, are they going to create more wealth disparity or less? You see, the concept of taxing the rich more to give to the poor, in an effort to "redistribute wealth" simply does not work, and never will work. It creates a cycle by which poor people become even poorer, as wealthy people continue to gain wealth. It's the diametric opposite of the environment you wish to create.

[canceled.2021.1]

*Sigh* I am so sick of this stupid "wealth inequality" meme. Do you fuckwits just not comprehend the basic nature of life or something? If you plant a tree in a good location with proper water and soil, sun and nutrients, do you expect it to grow stronger, faster and better, than a tree planted in a less desirable location with inadequate water, soil, etc.? Of course you do, only an abject idiot would think that trees planted in the undesirable location should be as big and strong as the others.

People who are wealthy an have amassed fortunes, are generally going to do better than poor people who have nothing. For the same basic reason the tree in the good location will do better than the tree in the poor location. Now, we could haul the soil from the healthy tree to the poor tree, but if the poor tree was planted in a bad location, the "soil redistribution plan" just won't work. The same basic principle applies to "wealth redistribution." We can take money from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood, but Robin Hood is fantasy. In practice, this only results in weakening the rich, it doesn't really help the poor. No poor person has ever been made wealthy by making rich people poorer.

Now, the people who have wealth, are also generally who start businesses and provide jobs to people who don't have wealth. So, if we hurt those people financially, what do you suppose is the ramification? Come on, I know you can get your retard brain to figure this out, if you try! The answer is simple, you effectively hurt the poor people who depend on the jobs from rich people, who have cut new jobs because they can't afford it anymore, because you raised their taxes too high. When this happens, what are the dynamics of wealth distribution? If a poor person loses their job, are they going to create more wealth disparity or less? You see, the concept of taxing the rich more to give to the poor, in an effort to "redistribute wealth" simply does not work, and never will work. It creates a cycle by which poor people become even poorer, as wealthy people continue to gain wealth. It's the diametric opposite of the environment you wish to create.

Just a couple of points of clarification. If you are going to bring up Robin Hood then please get it right. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich. He stole from the government that was taking the people's wealth through confiscatory taxation. It is an important distinction. I expect libtards to fuck it up but not self professed conservatives.

Lastly I wish people would stop defending tax hikes in the basis of "job producers". It is factually wrong and a bogus argument. Additionally it plays in the democrat field. Not all rich people create jobs by starting businesses

The right needs to learn to make moral arguments a out right and wrong based on freedom and Constitutional governance. That is the winning formula

[Jarod]

*Sigh* I am so sick of this stupid "wealth inequality" meme. Do you fuckwits just not comprehend the basic nature of life or something? If you plant a tree in a good location with proper water and soil, sun and nutrients, do you expect it to grow stronger, faster and better, than a tree planted in a less desirable location with inadequate water, soil, etc.? Of course you do, only an abject idiot would think that trees planted in the undesirable location should be as big and strong as the others.

People who are wealthy an have amassed fortunes, are generally going to do better than poor people who have nothing. For the same basic reason the tree in the good location will do better than the tree in the poor location. Now, we could haul the soil from the healthy tree to the poor tree, but if the poor tree was planted in a bad location, the "soil redistribution plan" just won't work. The same basic principle applies to "wealth redistribution." We can take money from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood, but Robin Hood is fantasy. In practice, this only results in weakening the rich, it doesn't really help the poor. No poor person has ever been made wealthy by making rich people poorer.

Now, the people who have wealth, are also generally who start businesses and provide jobs to people who don't have wealth. So, if we hurt those people financially, what do you suppose is the ramification? Come on, I know you can get your retard brain to figure this out, if you try! The answer is simple, you effectively hurt the poor people who depend on the jobs from rich people, who have cut new jobs because they can't afford it anymore, because you raised their taxes too high. When this happens, what are the dynamics of wealth distribution? If a poor person loses their job, are they going to create more wealth disparity or less? You see, the concept of taxing the rich more to give to the poor, in an effort to "redistribute wealth" simply does not work, and never will work. It creates a cycle by which poor people become even poorer, as wealthy people continue to gain wealth. It's the diametric opposite of the environment you wish to create.

People are not trees. People can move and learn and change what class they are born into via education and hard work. Rotten people are sometimes born into great wealth. Wonderfull people are sometimes born into great poverty.

For capitolism to work, we must promote a system where hard work and contrabution to society get you ahead. We do not need a system where lazyness after having wealthy ancestors keeps you ahead. Education is the biggest factor that allows for this ability to change places within a generation based on work ethic and ability. When the system is set up to keep the wealthy in a position of privledge for generation after generation, it severly weakens a capitolist system.

GWB did not get to be president as a result of hard work or intelegence. Bill Clinton did.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just a couple of points of clarification. If you are going to bring up Robin Hood then please get it right. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich. He stole from the government that was taking the people's wealth through confiscatory taxation. It is an important distinction. I expect libtards to fuck it up but not self professed conservatives.

Lastly I wish people would stop defending tax hikes in the basis of "job producers". It is factually wrong and a bogus argument. Additionally it plays in the democrat field. Not all rich people create jobs by starting businesses

The right needs to learn to make moral arguments a out right and wrong based on freedom and Constitutional governance. That is the winning formula

Well the problem the right has in politics today, is exemplified by your response. You want to find any way you can to disagree with me, and show liberals what a swell guy you are. We all know that Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, it's obtuse as hell to split hairs and make some defiant argument against that thought, and serves no purpose other than to score a point for accuracy.

Rich people don't provide all the jobs, again you are accurate, but tell me something, how many poor people have created jobs? My argument is most certainly NOT factually wrong, it's factually RIGHT! Jobs are ONLY created by people who have the ability to pay wages, which eliminates ALL poor people.

No, the right needs to get AWAY from "moral arguments" and focus on common sense. Constitutional governance, as we've discussed before, is a matter of opinion regarding what the Constitution says. You're NEVER going to elect a person who interprets the Constitution exactly the same way as you. Not knocking your position or views, just stating a fact of life. For every opinion you can present on what you believe the Constitution says, I can give you an opinion which contradicts it. Yeah, I agree we need to follow the Constitution more closely, but every politician elected to federal office, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. The problem is, which "version" are they going to uphold?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

People are not trees. People can move and learn and change what class they are born into via education and hard work.

But not as a result of wealth redistribution.

Rotten people are sometimes born into great wealth.

Rotten people are also sometimes born into great poverty. What is your point?

Wonderfull people are sometimes born into great poverty.

Again, wonderful people are also born into great wealth... do you have a point?

For capitolism to work, we must promote a system where hard work and contrabution to society get you ahead. We do not need a system where lazyness after having wealthy ancestors keeps you ahead. Education is the biggest factor that allows for this ability to change places within a generation based on work ethic and ability. When the system is set up to keep the wealthy in a position of privledge for generation after generation, it severly weakens a capitolist system.

GWB did not get to be president as a result of hard work or intelegence. Bill Clinton did.

You have no idea of what makes capitalism work, which incidentally, has been working splendidly for over 200 years here. Hard work and dedication still get you ahead, nothing has ever changed about that. The fact that some people have wealth they didn't work for and earn, is a byproduct of a prosperous capitalist system, and there is nothing we can do about that unless we destroy capitalism. Someone, at some point, did work hard and devote themselves to making a fortune, and they've passed this along to the next generation. Are you saying we'd all be better off if the government just took everything you own when you die?

[Rune]

Duplicate thread, dumbass

[Jarod]

But not as a result of wealth redistribution.



Rotten people are also sometimes born into great poverty. What is your point?



Again, wonderful people are also born into great wealth... do you have a point?



You have no idea of what makes capitalism work, which incidentally, has been working splendidly for over 200 years here. Hard work and dedication still get you ahead, nothing has ever changed about that. The fact that some people have wealth they didn't work for and earn, is a byproduct of a prosperous capitalist system, and there is nothing we can do about that unless we destroy capitalism. Someone, at some point, did work hard and devote themselves to making a fortune, and they've passed this along to the next generation. Are you saying we'd all be better off if the government just took everything you own when you die?

I am saying that if wealth consolidates around the wealthy and gets cemented there, as Republican policies tend to promote, a capitolist system will collapse. Once the wealthy are able to stifle the hard working and intelegent and prevent them from getting ahead... Capitolism fails. Our capitolism has worked very well for over 200 years because of our Governments ability to moderate it, because of anti-trust laws, because of the New Deal, because we have had a certian amount of intelegent wealth redistrabution. Universal Public Education is one of the greatest wealth distrabution programs ever... and its one of the things that made American Capitolism work so well.

[Cancel 2020.1]

I believe in capitalism, but one of its inherent flaws is that too much of the wealth ends up in the hands of too few of the people. Clearly, that's an issue that keeps getting more & more obvious.

[Jarod]

Capitalism must be moderated for it to work. Otherwise it ends with a few having all the wealth and power.

Dident you ever play monopoly?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am saying that if wealth consolidates around the wealthy and gets cemented there, as Republican policies tend to promote, a capitolist system will collapse. Once the wealthy are able to stifle the hard working and intelegent and prevent them from getting ahead... Capitolism fails. Our capitolism has worked very well for over 200 years because of our Governments ability to moderate it, because of anti-trust laws, because of the New Deal, because we have had a certian amount of intelegent wealth redistrabution. Universal Public Education is one of the greatest wealth distrabution programs ever... and its one of the things that made American Capitolism work so well.

Nonsense. The government did not even begin to get involved with regulation of capitalism until the mid 1900s. From 1776 to 1939, capitalism did just fine and dandy without government interference. Even with the reasonable government regulations, capitalism flourished through depressions and recessions, and continues to do well to this day. Capitalism is in no danger of collapse, unless Socialists manage to completely destroy it with more and more excessive regulation. What you are saying here is just abject ignorance and stupidity, marked by your inability to spell above a 4th grade level. Not exactly the person to be lauding the marvels of public education, are you?

I have no idea where you heard this shit about "Universal Public Education is one of the greatest wealth distrabution (sic) programs ever..." sounds like something Obama or John Kerry might say on the campaign trail. Public education simply doesn't take money from wealthy people and give it to poor people. Long ago, we developed what many will argue, is an inadequate education system, and in spite of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the system, we still have kids who can't compete internationally... We even have supposedly 'educated' adults on the Internet, spelling like 4th graders.

But look, don't feel bad about this, Jughead, through the years, many ignorant fools like you, have bought into the rhetoric of Socialists who promised a better life. Most of them ended up being executed by their government, but hey... it sounded good at the time! I can't fault you for going after the shiny objects, you are a moron who doesn't really know any better. In your mind, you honestly believe you are fighting the good fight, helping the poor and needy, making things better for all. It probably won't be until you are lined up in front of an open ditch for execution, that you realize how stupid and foolish you've been.

[Jarod]

Nonsense. The government did not even begin to get involved with regulation of capitalism until the mid 1900s. From 1776 to 1939, capitalism did just fine and dandy without government interference. Even with the reasonable government regulations, capitalism flourished through depressions and recessions, and continues to do well to this day. Capitalism is in no danger of collapse, unless Socialists manage to completely destroy it with more and more excessive regulation. What you are saying here is just abject ignorance and stupidity, marked by your inability to spell above a 4th grade level. Not exactly the person to be lauding the marvels of public education, are you?

I have no idea where you heard this shit about "Universal Public Education is one of the greatest wealth distrabution (sic) programs ever..." sounds like something Obama or John Kerry might say on the campaign trail. Public education simply doesn't take money from wealthy people and give it to poor people. Long ago, we developed what many will argue, is an inadequate education system, and in spite of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the system, we still have kids who can't compete internationally... We even have supposedly 'educated' adults on the Internet, spelling like 4th graders.

But look, don't feel bad about this, Jughead, through the years, many ignorant fools like you, have bought into the rhetoric of Socialists who promised a better life. Most of them ended up being executed by their government, but hey... it sounded good at the time! I can't fault you for going after the shiny objects, you are a moron who doesn't really know any better. In your mind, you honestly believe you are fighting the good fight, helping the poor and needy, making things better for all. It probably won't be until you are lined up in front of an open ditch for execution, that you realize how stupid and foolish you've been.

You can always tell when Dixie has lost an argument when he refuses to discuss the issues and turns it into a personal attack.