[c-b 1]

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?

No! It is none of my business what other people have.

What does bother me is having money I have earned taken from me by the government, and used to create and enforce regulations, mandates, and new taxes which are called fees, which make it more, and more difficult to make a living.

[I got the rope]

Interesting. Here's an observation that is really bothering ME right now:
There is a steady shift of resources (taxes) being sent to the oldest in our nation. It is in the form of social security, medicare, prescription drugs, etc. This shift along with the rapid increase in health care has caused a lowering of the standard of living for my family. I have 3 kids under 5. I will make less next near...even though I had a 4% raise and a 5% bonus on a 57K a year salary. My insurance costs have increased enormously. Why?
It seems the more government regulates the worse it gets for people like me. Statist lawyers and judges are killing the middle class in my opinion. The law is being manipulated to their advantage on all fronts, and we get stuck holding the bill.

[KingNo155]

Want money ? Think less and work more!

[Consort]

Do you remember at what point in your life The Three Rs morphed into Rubin, Reich and Rivlin?

[hosepipe]

PolSci:
You're Profs are unified in a left wing cabal.. YES, you'res !!... If that doest'nt piss you off... you're cannon fodder already.. GET REAL,, GET INFORMED.. PLUMB this archive(freeRepublic) of pertinent UGH!... articles... You seem to be dynamic and open.. clue: don't try to fool you're elders... we've been there, done that,, many times.. don't pass this around... "DAVID HOROWITZ"... he has a web site.. know what I mean..?

[Jeff Gordon]

the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth

Take all the wealth in America and redistribute equally among all citizens.

How long would it take for 10% of the country to own 90% of the wealth?

a) Two years
b) Five years
c) Ten years

[Dumb_Ox]

I am no economist, but it seems to me that income redistribution, whether through government funding for education, health, or military, results in inflation for the whole class of people they support. More government-funded teachers means that teachers as a whole are paid less. (How ironic that teachers' unions clamor for smaller class sizes, and then complain that they are paid so little!) This might be an argument against tax cuts too, though inflationary pressures would differ depending on the tax bracket targeted for the cut. I'm not too committed to this line of reasoning myself--for all I know, there might be times when inflation is a good thing--so I'd appreciate it if you could back it up or shoot it down.

If instead of government work-programs you're into direct government grants for the poor, let’s say we’re really generous redistributionists who give a grant of $15,000 per year to each indigent person. That's the same as one would make at a $7.50 per hour job. Now many young people, who are--understandably--stupid, would rather not work and get paid than work and get paid. Indeed, some wouldn't accept an $8.50 per hour job, even though it pays more, because they like not working. But these are the very people who need the skills and work experience that an entry-level position provides--they can't start at manager, after all. The person who works for three years at a low wage is better off than the servile wretch who sponges off the government for those same three years. One has the opportunity for advancement, while the other's 'advancement' is getting the low-paying job he should have taken in the first place.

Government hand-outs create a culture of dependence along the borders-what Hilaire Belloc called the Servile State. Though the lazy welfare recipient I described is lazy towards job opportunities, he is likely not to be lazy if some politician promises to increase his handout. This brings me to my next argument, to which I am very committed.

Government control of tremendous wealth attracts more power-hungry men eager to enrich themselves and those like themselves. The petty tyrants go into politics, where they can do damage to everyone, rather than into business, where at most they can exploit only their workers, customers, and business partners. Instead of worrying only about those who get their kicks out of enforcing law and order, our polity now has to worry about more sycophants of power and more purloiners of federal revenue getting into the mix. Bad characters drive good characters out, and the result is a poorer political society. Upset that politics is so base? Angry that Bush and Kerry are your only electable options? Regretful that we can choose only politicians instead of statesmen? Then shrink the size and scope of the government.

This, of course, is only a negative argument for income inequality. The positive argument for income inequality is highly controversial--some would say it died with the Confederacy. Its reasoning runs as follows: those with a life of managing wealth and the large communities that accompany and produce wealth. Their position at the head of a large community gives such men expertise in organizing and directing men, while their income provides them leisure to study law, philosophy, economics--the liberal arts, studies fit for a free man. And from these men, who are by training best able to choose, society chooses its leaders. It’s a very Greek argument. Here’s a brief defense of one of its proponents, Pseudo-Xenophon or "The Old Oligarch." This is an aristocratic argument, of course, and its reasoning resulted in, for instance, laws restricting the suffrage to property-owners. Since the US was, in Orestes Brownson’s phrase, an “aristocratic republic,” I don’t see why this should be too troubling.

It’s late, so I shall give my answer to your question “does this bother you” tomorrow. Short answer: yes. Long answer: My proposed alternative.

[longtermmemmory]

No offense but you need to read more than what professors spoon feed you. Professors are refugees from the real word.

Income inequality? ha. Should we put a cap on hollywood actors and actresses? Remember Huey Long and his cap on income?

If all you want is to aspire to be a Deaniac you are on you way. If you want to lean, the open your mind and study some non-communist ecconimics.

[maui_hawaii]

I think income inequality sucks, especially because I am on the low end of things :o)

In reality though, for all thats said about the topic, it often gives hope to MANY people. They might not admit it, but it does.

For the guy in the ghetto who has very little, he can look out and say 'that sucks...that guy has a Benz and I have nothing'...Aside from this immediate reaction, in a longer term sense, wether admitted or not, it creates a desire and hope within that same person to change his own situation, and to know it can be done.

[Mo1]

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?

No .. why should it?

There will always be rich folks .. they work their butts off to start a business and watch it grow bigger and bigger to the point they can offer jobs to others

That's what so great in this country .. anyone can do this if they really want to.

[mcspur]

"What do people think about income inequality?"


I don't think about it. Look, there will always be rich and poor. It is my job to make sure that my family ( wife ) and I are not poor. That is why I got an education and got a job, also I make investments. In doing this I also put money back into the system so that others can through their hard work and industriousness do the same as I. This is the way the world works.

[razorback-bert]

Political science is an oxymoron.

[LibKill]

I am paid more than I'm worth, or a great deal less than I'm worth. It depends on what is going on on any given day.

BTW, I despise socialism, I will take my chances in a FRee Republic, win or lose.

[aquila48]

As a political science student with deep admiration for the european model, and left leaning, this is a must read.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1078080/posts

...and contrast it with the inanity of this blowhard fool,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1078184/posts

[smadurski]

Dont be fooled by this guy he is from DU he refers to reading FR as swimming in sewage and calls us repukes.

[fightu4it]

You are responsible for your own 'Income Inequality.'