Clinton Crime Family Foundation

[RandFan]

Not only is social mobility comparatively low but the consequences of low social mobility are worse than they used to be.

Yes. And those who have the power to increase fees on the poor have been very effective at reducing disposable income for the poor. The rich? They have the govt to ease the difficulties of living on 7 figures. Tax break in the form of deductions, credits, etc.. The EIC is one of the few bright spots in the war to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. And those who have the power to increase fees on the poor have been very effective at reducing disposable income for the poor. The rich? They have the govt to ease the difficulties of living on 7 figures. Tax break in the form of deductions, credits, etc.. The EIC is one of the few bright spots in the war to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich.

An example is called for.

• Chris Christie lowered taxes on the rich.
• This resulted in a budge short fall.
• He, (his aid actually) concocted a scheme to raise toll fees and engaged in an elaborate hoax. The toll fees are regressive and harm the poor.

Then again, who gives a ****. These are poor people. **** 'em. Right?

 

[The Big Dog]

Shills like the Clintons should bite the hand that feeds them more often.

 

[RandFan]

 

[Manopolus]

I've seen you make this claim in other threads. Most rich people I know did it themselves. Most of them are third generation Americans whose ancestors came here dirt poor. They aren't billionaires but they are wealthy enough.

I remember you complaining that you couldn't get the type of work you think you deserve while people around you who were born rich had it easy. Maybe these rich people simply didn't share your attitude regarding what it means to work toward something.



Sorry to drag out an old quote, but this attitude seems prevalent these days, and it's not a good one. Many many jobs make some "greedy bastard" more money than you, that's kinda how it works, but eventually, if you work hard, you can become that greedy bastard. Or perhaps you can be not so greedy, but you have to earn it either way.

I don't blame you though in some ways - the economy and job availability situation is crap, no matter how politicians spin it and tell us otherwise. It is tougher to make a buck, and salaries have been stagnant for a long time.
As for the Clinton's, like many politicians, they seem to have somehow gotten rich by being politicians, which is a bit interesting given the salaries that we pay them.

How to you suppose it's possible for rank-and-file HARD WORKING Americans to get both highlighted parts to match?

Hint: It's not.

And the problem goes a bit deeper than that. Some of the easiest ways to get rich in this world are things that only sociopaths can do with a straight face. Neither physical labor nor even technical skills are going to do it for you, at least not without the absolutely necessary element.

Salesmanship. Greed combined with forced likability in a fashion that isn't sincere by definition. Some people seem sort of born to it. Others of us quite simply couldn't perform well at it if our lives were at stake. It's not even a matter of knowing how -- hell, even I know how -- it's a personality thing, and some of us have an aversion to it. Someone that's weak in that particular element to their personality (and that's actually most people) can do a little better at it with practice, but generally can't maintain any sort of consistency because it's against their nature, and often contrary to their ethos as well.

Don't get me wrong. There is such a thing as self discipline and it can help such things. However, sometimes it's better to be honest than to be richer.

 

[Manopolus]

Just to be clear:

When you get down to the base of it, the whole economy is nothing but a silly game we use to determine people's place in society. The game has nothing to do whatsoever with the "worth" of a person. Like any sport, those that expend a lot of time and effort on it will be the ones at the top -- that is, if they're lucky (and sometimes if they're good at cheating). However, there's nothing whatsoever in it which would suggest that those who have other priorities are less deserving. As a matter of fact, most of society has traditionally been antagonistic towards those that don't care about much of anything but money. It's no different really than putting people in a boxing match and giving the winner a mansion and kicking the loser out on the street. It's more complex than that, but it isn't notably different.

Yeah, I get that there are material goods and whatnot involved (and even food production), but the bulk of it is completely superfluous in an economy as vast and complex as the one we have. More goods are produced for sheer vanity than for survival or for any practical use, and about half of it is wasted on usury. The top part of the chain is nothing BUT usury. Sorry, but that ain't "hard work" by anyone's definition.

Anyway, add to that quite a bit of happenstance and randomness and you'll have a chance of "getting" my view on the economy.

The bottom line is that extreme capitalism is not equal to a meritocracy, and there are other ways to organize things. I'm not quite a communist, mind you, but I don't think that occasionally changing the rules of engagement (to include redistribution) is even slightly out of line. As a matter of fact, I think it's necessary every now and then. You can look at it as punishing success if you want to, but in reality it's just adding another element to the game in order to achieve a better result for the masses.

Anyway, this is starting to derail, since none of that has anything to do with the Clintons. Sorry about that. Bringing other threads up tends to muddy things.