[A_Former_Democrat]

Yep, sure as the sun rising . . out come the talking points, and notice who always run with them . .same ol, same ol tired hypocritical idiots

[Jim Robinson]

Obama should be first in line to take equal pay. Bet he’s not spreading HIS wealth around.

[Steve_Seattle]

Ok, Judy, you wanna pay cut, you can have it. Does $15 an hour sound about right?

[Steve_Seattle]

These people actually think that cutting the pay of CEOs will magically transform every job into a $40 an hour job. Drastic cuts in the pay of CEOs would have a minimal impact on the wages of everyone else.

[3catsanadog]

I say make a law that everyone earns $50,000.00 a year. No more, no less. The janitor makes as much as a Brian Williams or a Brad Pitt or a Michal Jordan.

Then we will start hearing a bunch of "But, but, but . . . " from the liberals. And our side replies "Well, didn't you want income equality? Isn't this fair now????"

[MIchaelTArchangel]

Income inequality is a false metric.

Let’s assume:
1. The poverty level for a family of four is $38,000.00 a year.
2. All families of four earn at least $40,000.00 a year.
3. The highest salaried person earn $40,000,000.00 a year.

The inequality gap between the lowest family of four and the highest family of four is $39,999,960.00.

Let’s also assume:
1. No one gets any promotions. (The left always assumes this even if they won’t admit it.)
2. No one changes jobs. (This is what leftists actually want. Firemen on diesel locomotives!)
3. No one gets a pay raise above the inflation rate.
4. No one gets a pay raise below the inflation rate.
5. The inflation rate stays constant at 3.50% for twenty years.

All the above numbers in the first set of assumptions are doubled. The poverty level is at $76,000.00. The lowest earning family of four makes $80,000.00. The highest earner makes $80,000,000.00.

No one is any better off than he was 20 years earlier. No one is any worse off than he was 20 years earlier. But the leftists will note that the inequality gap is $79,999,920.00! That is too much by their method of emoting.

They apparently ignore the fact that no one is living below the poverty level. No one is better off and no one is worse off. They also ignore the fact that the poverty gap expended from $2,000.00 to $4,000.00 (even though the poverty gap is as meaningless and the income inequality measure.)

In short, leftists are mathematically challenged if not entirely innumerate.

[Balata]

Some liberals probably don't even believe their own propaganda that redistribution stimulates economic growth. In 2008, Obama told ABC's Charlie Gibson he favors increasing capital gains tax rates despite the fact that such increases had resulted in less revenue for the government. "It's a matter of fairness, Charlie."

Those on this side of the isle, RHINO or conservative, need to grab the montra of fairness. Anytime the Dems or Media talk about income inequality the response needs to be "It's not FAIR to tax those who work for their income and give it to those who don't."

IOW's they need to be able to put something out there that the Low Info Voters can hang onto and repeat. They will understand the word Fairness

[Terry L Smith]

My idea of income inequality is this:
Sit on your fat butt for free, no money from me;
OR,
Get up off it, get some pride back inside you, go to work, AND MAKE SOME MONEY!

“Entry-level jobs” are just that!
Pay the flaming idiot that has to read the computer press board to find what you ordered, the same price as someone in the electronics field???

“GO FISH!”

[Vince Ferrer]

Vote for thieves 2014

[moovova]

“We need to get the economy moving again and get people back to work.”

No worries Judy...Obama has set his sights on fixing unemployment with a laser-like focus...

Why, Debbie Whatshername Schultz explained that way back on November of 2011...

“Well, we’re not focused on poll. I mean, we’re a year away from an election. The president is focused like a laser on passing the American Jobs Act, on making sure we put people back to work.”

[GodAndCountryFirst]

Here is what few people have the guts to say: For a while, the rich need to get get richer, the poor need to get poorer and the middle class (which us artificially large due to union and government interference) needs to shrink. This need to continue until the economic natural balance is restored and wealth can be rebuilt on that basis.

We’ve spent 100 years moving in the “progressive,” theft-based direction. It will take a while to unwind all of it. But, if we get on the right course again, being poor will once again become intolerable. Once that happens, few people will choose it as an easy lifestyle alternative.

[dhs12345]

When all else fails and you are losing the PR battle, get the people fighting amongst each other.... race, class, etc.

[Gay State Conservative]

The new mayor of Boston,who,IIRC,makes something like $150K/yr,made “income inequality” the keynote of his inaugural address,as did Comrade De Blasio in NYC.

[bray]

Marxist just make up phrases to trick the masses. When the Clintons, Obamas and Gore’s give up their money, then we’ll talk.

Pray America is Waking

[Usagi_yo]

Seems like the best way to combat this new Income Inequality narrative is to actually ask for specifics from the Income Inequality cheer leaders.

[freedomfiter2]

The first step to income equality should be the deportation of the illegals. While the left will use this issue the crony capitalists are waging class warfare on working class Americans and the GOP is complicit. Republicans could take this issue from the Dems and uphold conservatism at the same time.

[zencycler]

Among varous stats that get posted on social networking sites to feed this frenzy is the one that cites a study which shows that 95% of the income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top 1%.

But this is a stat that is a distortion on three levels:

1) It selective chooses a period to get that result, while ignoring that for the two years leading up to 2009 the "rich" lost more than they gained in the years that followed. In other words, for the five-year period the top 1% had a net loss of income.

2) When measuring income inequality it does not include government transfer payments (benefits) provided to the lower income levels.

3) The stat is looking at gross income, not just earned income. So since the super-rich are more heavily invested in volatile assets than the rest of us, then when there are major economic swings, up or down, then either way, the rich will naturally (and justifiably) have the lion's share of those gains or losses.

Note the link below which documents what I've said:

http://nationalreview.com/article/363701/truth-about-1-percent-alan-reynolds#!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Income Inequality is caused by Productivity Inequality.

[jmacusa]

Hey Judy, why don’t you work for minimum wage? Then you’ll be on par with the folks who work at WalMart. Or better yet empty your bank account and ‘’spread it around’’ you dumb bitch.

[Peet]

On "Meet the Press," PBS anchorwoman Judy Woodruff sounded the alarm, not as a dispassionate reporter but as a progressive advocate. While acknowledging Obama's problems with Obamacare, she breathlessly insisted, "At the same time, the argument for doing something about the economy, the argument for addressing inequality, is such a compelling argument."

Let me help you out here, Libtard Woodruff:

1) Recession: Your neighbor loses his job.
2) Depression: You lose your job.
3) Recovery: zer0bama loses his job.

Don't make me say that again.