What is Digg?368 Comments
- BuckQJohnson, on 10/21/2007, -22/+63I agree with you, the rich did get theirs and definitely got ours to but how did it happen. I will tell you, we the people voted our dreams and aspirations. We voted for lower taxes for the rich because we thought hey one day I may be rich and those laws will help me out. The elite know by using religion, your dreams and our inate abililty for intolerance, they where and are able to make you pay attention to right hand while they rob you from the left hand. We did this to ourselves and by doing so we reap what we sowed.
We sowed intolerance, hatred, racism and bullying of our fellow man and woman and what do we reap. We reap a budding police state that is on the home stretch of coming into fluition (they used to beat up and kill just "those people" minorities but now the mechanism is going after there own supporters), a govt. of the oligarchy for the oligarchy that won't or doesn't listen to there fellow citizen, an economic system that is based on us spending and acquiring debt, and a dog eat dog and one upmanship society where everybody is fighting over whats left from the elite table in order for them to have some form of self esteem. When you have low self esteem, (intolerance, hatred, racism and bullying) is very easy to do and spending to act as if your one of privileged is easy to do also. - argoff, on 10/15/2007, -3/+30The rich are getting so much richer precisely because we have a fiat money system that creates a bunch of debt and inflation, and because we tax income (vs, say - net worth) - meaning that the guy who busts his chops to create 20 jobs and earn his first million gets his nuts ripped off while the guy already sitting on top of zillions in dollars worth of assets barely even notices.
- Tenoq, on 10/13/2007, -1/+27Because they can't afford to invest it. Clearly YOU'RE uneducated about economics. That's the whole reason income tax & sales taxes penalise low income earners the most - because they have to spend a great proportion of their income just to live. Take your average earner - $40k. He gets about $33k after income tax (Aus tax rates, US is not much different). It then costs him about $30k just to pay his mortgage/rent, food, bills, etc, etc. He has $3k left to enjoy or invest. Next, look at your above-average earner on $80k. He gets about $65k to take home. It costs him the same $30k to live... perhaps a little more if he bought a fancier house (say $40k). He's still got $25k left to invest or enjoy - so his wealth increases exponentially. That's where your problem lies.
- art42, on 10/14/2007, -12/+38The vvoo troll got a new account today.
- AnitraWeb, on 10/17/2007, -5/+31Can you read? Direct from the article: "IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick."
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -7/+32A government of the wealthy, and that caters to the wealthy by deceiving the poor and middle class is unsustainable. If history repeats itself, eventually the poor and middle class can bear it no longer and attack the wealthy. It has happened many times even in the history of the United States, and the wealthy have always feared it may happen to them.
- matt77, on 10/17/2007, -3/+27"We don't need to make more playing games with numbers."
Then why not look at real data instead of just making stuff up? The reality is that adjusted median incomes across all skill levels have been basically stagnant since the 70s. Meanwhile, the adjusted per-capita gdp has been growing. So, while more wealth is being generated, *none* of it is going to the middle class (or the lower class, as shown in the links below). Geez, where could it be going?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_I ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Educatio ... - amsterdamordeth, on 10/14/2007, -11/+35It is the power they wield, not the money in their pocket that bothers me. I think the majority are tired of the super-rich making laws that allow them to make more money, at the expense of the working class. Whatever political ideology you want to place me in, ***** what you say, the truth is that money is power and they have too much of both.
I am in the top 2% of income earners in the world, and I still believe this. So it isn't just the poor and middle class who think this way. When the working class gets too close to earning their own power, the elites and ultra rich fight them and destroy them to keep their gold toilet bowl cleaners and billion dollar mansions behind secure walls. - shark615, on 10/15/2007, -6/+20What? Why would Home Depot hire you? Why the ***** would you apply to that? They probably didn't hire you because as a educated, probably young man you were over qualified for the job and it would more then likely be temporary. They dont want tmep workers they want semi-permanent works that will pay back the time involved in learning and training.
Not cause you are black. Why do some blacks always go there when there are several other more likely alternatives. - DutchGuilder, on 10/15/2007, -2/+16If possible, read the amazing "Lessons of History" by Will and Ariel Durant. Income inequity is nothing new, it has occurred many times in the past 2000 years and always ends in collapse/revolution/rebirth of civilizations.
- foofightrs777, on 10/13/2007, -7/+20Equitable income distribution which includes a healthy and sizable middle class is what makes makes modern Western capitalism work. If the middle class doesn't have the disposable income to purchase goods then the corporations don't get theirs. Just look at the current housing market and the reports of a difficult year for many retailers including the once invincible Walmart. The economy has been fundamentally restructured since the Regean Revolution of the 1980s to reward those who already have money over those who labor to earn their keep. The economy is not viable in the long term.
- ZenMojo, on 10/14/2007, -15/+27Skilled highly motivated people not being able to find jobs is a fallacy? How can you say it's a fallacy? The only way it would be a fallacy is if the United States were a meritocracy and you got out of it what you put into it, but if that were true then you would have to know the function of the economy from top to bottom. Now, anyone who has ever worked a day in his life should know better unless he is brainwashed.
Now, to put things in perspective, a white highschool drop-out is four times as likely to find work as a college-educated black person. I have experienced this discrimination directly. I got out of college and over the summer tried to find a job at Home Depot...wouldn't hire me. Tried construction...wouldn't hire me. I finally had to go through three temp agencies before I miraculously found a job paying 60k a year that my conscience would allow (the CIA, surprisingly enough, tried to recruit me probably because my dad's Nigerian and they're all into nation building). Now, as incredible as it sounds that someone wouldn't hire a black man from the number one school in the country to work a ***** cash register, there you go. There's your anecdote. I'm not surprised you got at least one digg from the ignorant self-deafened hands-over-their-eyes people clueless about the discrimination that exists in this country, but I don't have to abide it. - shark615, on 10/13/2007, -1/+13except the swedes
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -11/+22Because personal accountability does not create an income gap this large. Ever. It takes outside actors.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/14/2007, -8/+19You either didn't read, or your lack of intellect made you fail to understand what I actually said. I didn't say they couldn't be successful, I said without MONEY they could not have any real power. Which is why presidential candidates get a LOT of money to campaign. I went from making 20k a year (full time), supporting a wife and kids, to making more than 10 times that, because I put aside stuff that was a complete waste of time that consumes most people's daily lives. If I didn't read digg, I would get slightly more work done, but I also can't work all day long without taking a break. I spend about an hour a day total reading articles and commenting to them, and I benefit greatly. I don't watch television or play video games. That is how. Don't ask for proof or I will prove you wrong very quickly.
If I were you, I would heed Lincoln's advice that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - vertinox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10Ummm... Poor people have drug, divorce, and dysfunctional kids too.
- bitORlogic, on 10/13/2007, -0/+10"The middle class is a buffer that keeps the hands of the poor from the throats of the rich."
I forget who said that, but it's very true. - rotundo, on 10/21/2007, -2/+12But wait! Give "trickle down" a chance to work! Please! The richer the billionaires get the more likely they'll drop money on us poor working shmucks! Don't be impatient... it'll happen any day now!
Actually: I think "trickle down" works... if you assume that the poor people are at the top and the rich at the bottom. All money that goes to the poor eventually goes back to the rich. - Racerx52, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13What a good time to train a more aggressive policing and controlling tactics.
- naldwell, on 10/13/2007, -2/+12Anyone can make money, but not everyone begins on equal footing. Some people find it easier to get loans, jobs, or an education, for reasons other than their intelligence.
- bobzibub, on 10/17/2007, -5/+14Reason being is not that the rich are more productive, but their parents were.
George Bush --> GW Bush.
Hilton (hotel magnate) --> Paris Hilton.
Traditionally, the "second son" ends the fortune. But today, you're can remain wealthy for many generations based upon low dividend tax rates. Plus, companies write 90% of laws, and they also have a legal duty to share holders. So legally they are bound to thwart the political system to their ends. Which they are successful at. That is why there is no more bankruptcy, far more have no health insurance and it costs far more to go to school. And the purpose of the state (once to protect and lift people up) is now simply to suppress.
For those that fear socialism, understand that it already exists: The only difference is that today the beneficiaries' last names all end in "Inc." The state will go to war for them. It will go into debt for them. It will allow pollution for them. Of course the peeps are the ones that fight the war, pay the debt and breath the pollution.
Governments and companies are not inherently evil entities. They can be very good. But the system must be tweaked so that these two parties never enter into a compact. The compact is the evil thing. It must end. - ZenMojo, on 10/14/2007, -3/+12Income inequality is bad because the value of the dollar changes within a closed economic system. Por ejemplo, let's say a Big Mac (a predictable measurement of good costs anticipating the cost of making a Big Mac, the energy costs, and all of those things used across the economic spectrum that go into Big Mac construction) costs 3 dollars. If the lowest 80% of incomes are stable and the highest 20% of incomes double, then the wealth of the country as a whole increases by about 80% (nee, the pareto principle). The value of the Big Mac trends, too, up by 80%.
So now you have a Big Mac that costs $5.40 when you once had a Big Mac that once cost $3.00. This wouldn't be a problem if everybody's wealth increased by a similar percentage, but where there is increasing income inequality, the trend in the price of goods trends with GDP and/or inflation regardless of the lower end of the wage scale. Poor people get POORER, rich people get RICHER.
Now, income inequality is GREAT for rich people...they can buy more with their dollar. Where you stand on either side of this debate will pretty much reflect who you are and where you stand on the wage scale. Rich people will of course argue FOR income inequality and everyone else who isn't rich should argue AGAINST it. But if you're just a brainwashed tool like most people were in the 1920's jerking off to Horatio Alger myths, then, yeah, you can cheer for the rich as well hoping that your purity of heart and Puritan work ethic (no one mentions there weren't many rich Puritans) will rescue you from reality. - Abomonog, on 10/13/2007, -2/+11What is the sense in making 200k a year if it occupies every waking moment to do so?
- etnu, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8No -- income inequality leads to slow buying, slow development, etc.
If only wealthy, well off people can afford to go to college and buy things, the entire economy suffers. EVERYONE gets poorer.
An ideal society will have a wealth distribution curve where the majority of the population controls the majority of the wealth. You still have rich people, you still have poor people -- but the average person does OK.
When you have massive gaps, you get social unrest and stagnation. You get the great depression, you get world war 2, and you get the french revolution. - natmaster, on 10/17/2007, -1/+9That's what happens when you inflate the currency and give the money directly to the wealthy before it is devalued.
- nick111, on 10/15/2007, -3/+11Which is itself utter *****.
Never ceases to amaze met - the degree to which the unlettered will argue for the rights of wealthy speculators while their own go quietly down the pan - schoate09, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7She couldn't get a job because theres an overflow of lawyers...
- bugsy187, on 10/16/2007, -8/+15A lady I know got good grades in school, went to law school, and graduated with straight A's. After college, she was unable to find a job for over a year. She ended up moving to Chicago to find work. I'm honestly not sure if she did, though I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. If someone that elite and accomplished can't find work, something is profoundly wrong. The "laziness" or "stupidity" argument people are parroting on this page is pure pro-rich propaganda.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/14/2007, -7/+14Police State:
I keep thinking from what I see, and what I've learned in political science in university, about fascism. It seems the United States is turning into a fascist police state.
But I I don't trust my judgment.
I keep seeing people present reasons why a police state is developing and I keep seeing people deny it without any real reason beyond mentioning this tin foil hat. When you mention someone has a tin foil hat does that make you automatically right? What the heck? Is that some sort of ticket to correctness?
If I want someone to be wrong and I can't think of a good reason should I just say they have a tin foil hat? - lordmike, on 10/14/2007, -6/+12Well, what do you expect when we've spent the last generation destroying the New Deal which basically established the healthy middle class we used to have before Reagan came into office.
- luskin, on 10/14/2007, -11/+17If you want a redistribution of income, Ron Paul is the last person you should vote for.
- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7a lot of people do live within their means and still struggle. Stop ignoring the real problems and stop blaming the victims and the poor that are stuck in a flawed economic system such as pure capitalism.
- blackolive, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7@azue3es
"The top 50% of income earners pay 90% of taxes."
This is a lie, Rush Limbaugh says it all the time but really he's talking about the federal income tax, not all income. There's many huge taxes - like sales, gasoline, payroll, etc. - ThomasPaine23, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6In all your well eudcated elitist life you have obviously overlooked the word hubris.....
While it may be true that the "elite" may overcome the rest of humanity, with such a mindset they will invent the very tools that destroy themselves. Your post even foreshadows that outcome. With this mindset comes the belief that one should not have to "lower" oneself and get your hands dirty. Thus, why should I guard the gates? I'll make a robot to do it.... At some point those robots will come to the same conclusion you have. At which point they will view YOU as the "Useless Eaters" - netant, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Speaking as a minority, spare me the drama.
I already blame you for everything crappy that is about to happen, because you obviously have already learn how to blame other people for your problems and failures. You can feel better about it, but you're still a whining loser.
Yes, we live in a country where every other individual outside your ethnic group may hate your guts, and may look to undermine you merely because of your ethnic group. But that's not a police state.
A (racist) police state is where the gov't is used to UNEQUALLY abuse its authority over individuals based upon its ethnic group, and where such individual has no LEGAL recourse to mitigate such abuse. That's is just not the case on the coasts. If you live in Jena, LA, and you're black, then yes, you may live in a (racist) police state.
If you live in NYC, are a white cutthroat, then generally you will be abused with the same level of physical violence and procedural discrimination inflicted upon a black/hispanic cutthroat. That may be a police state, but that's not racism. The fact that white cutthroats seem to get lighter criminal punishment and more legal options compared to their colored brethren, that's racism, but that's not necessarily a police state (enforcing racism).
Being a minority may mean dealing with a lot of bull crap, but boo hoo, nobody gives a ***** damn (probably because we're all racists). Man up, grow a skin. Its an obstacle; learn to surmount it, or choose be a whining victim. Life is unfair, deal. The generation that lived in the South during legalized racism, and jury sanctioned murders, think you're a soft pussy.
"The youth of America may immigrate to an EU country", but the EU isn't enlightened culture either. Just ask any Muslim in France or Germany, or "Paki" in England.
What's important, besides stopping the pity party, is to make the effort to understand everything, rather than label everything. Then you'll realize you can't pursue the same tactics in the '50's and '60's and expect them to address your unique issues in the 21st century. Yeah, killing affirmative action programs sucks, but really, why would you want a crappy government job based upon your race? Reparations for Slavery? Are you kidding??? What the ***** do you think you'll get out of that, even if the general population DIDN'T decide to kill you to avoid paying up? A couple of grand? Meanwhile, rich ***** are making a killing from putting "your kind" into the prison industry, and not upsetting the apple cart by applying the same "justice" to "white folk". Instead of focusing on real problems, you're being led by the nose by rich-owned media and its paid Uncle Tom's on crap like "reparations".
The US is a country based on access to opportunity and individual ability. There are few places in the world like it (and if you find one, let me know). Learn to grasp opportunities, rather than be a sucker for pitches. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6"From my understanding most Americans have an income less than $50,000"
Median income is a little over $48K.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf - PaulDrake, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6There's no provable fact that money equals happiness...so?
There's provable correlations between money and health care and money and housing/food/clothing.
Stupid slogans mean nothing. - w3bsmith, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Step out. Withhold the talents of your hands and of your mind, so that they cannot be used violently against you. Find your own way to earn money than and you will find a better way.
Do not head the regulations; refuse their validity against your work. Reveal the the impotency of those few against the individual who can simply walk through the rather large holes in their nets. Do not let society teach you that you should feel guilty for not wanting to follow the rules.
The only thing that I ask, is that you not harm anyone yourself. Should you do that, well then you're no better than them. - twinklyJesus, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5What I think, is, that people eating a lot of processed junk is what causes high rates of diabetes, not high fructose corn syrup. If it was the fault of HFCorn syrup, how do you explain the high rates of diabetes prior to it's introduction?
My theory is that your fat ass should get off the couch, off the internet, step away from the twinkies and the instances of diabetes will subside.
***** Ron Paul can't get my shirts whiter, he cant cure the common cold, he's not the answer to life, the universe, and everything. You are repeating a marketing mantra. Stop being an idiot. - synapz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Two words: Federal reserve. Instituted in 1913, and been ***** us up ever since.
- cdiggy, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7And this is my point. Perfection is a good blend of the two.
- tehxen3, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Except all around unemployment is lower now than in Clinton years after Bush's $1.1 trillion tax cuts, and that little massive 2000 recession thingie. Also economic growth is at an all time high. Ask thousands of small and medium businesses who they prefer.
- sangjmoon, on 10/13/2007, -3/+8Sure. It did wonders in the USSR.
- jmpeagle, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7I am just assumming you are trolling because no one can be that ignorant. Here is a basic lesson for you.
Do you understand supply and demand of money at all? When supply increases, prices go up. Those on fixed wages by DEFINITION have a FALL in real income because now their wages buy less. The Fed has a basic band of inflation that it is willing to accept (read any article Bernanke has written on the subject especially his criticisms of his predecessor Greenspan) of around 1-3%. If inflation falls too low, then the Fed pumps more money into the system by buying government securities bonds through the open market window (terms open market operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operation ) The effect of this is two fold, one forcing down interest rates as the price of bonds rise and two is increasing the amount of available money in the economy.
Now anyone who knows anything about money knows that money is neutral in the long run as prices adjust and that only productivity can raise living standards (or a decline in the government created tax wedge that reduce efficiency). However, monetary policy does have real short term effects due to sticky prices etc... so that those who first recieve the extra amount of money recieve the lionshare of the benefit but as it works its way through the system, prices adjust to neutralize the effect. The problem is, the price that is slowest to adjust due to contracts are wages meaning inflation takes away purchasing power from the poor and redisributes it to assets. Falling interest rates move incentives from work to wealth making those with wealth better off and those who work worse off. Read any literature on Monetary policy. I recommend the Journal of Monetary Economics or the Journal of Economic Theory (unfortunalely the copyright holders on this one make it very difficult to access outside of their licensed website ScienceDirect but any University library should have it available). - etnu, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6Interestingly enough, your arguments are pretty much the same as those made by the leaders of France, Russia, England, etc. shortly before their citizens revolted and destroyed them.
You greatly overestimate your importance in the world. - AnitraWeb, on 10/13/2007, -8/+13The earned income of the majority of wage earners shrank; not by subjective estimate, but by W2 forms. America did not have an epidemic of laziness. America had an epidemic of free-market ideology held superior to real-market facts.
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -4/+9Republicans use "the free market" promise to perpetuate the monstrosity that is their "Italian-model" fascist nightmare in the same way that they prop themselves up with "G-d and religion." Atheists and socialists are their great boogeymen, enough to rally the crowds by painting the world in simple black and white and scaring the masses into submission to a higher power ... the dollar.
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Have they taught you ratios in your math class at middle school yet?
- roystgnr, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Wow, so I'm not the only person to have noticed that! Our government has an income tax, and thanks to a nine trillion dollar debt we also have a wealth anti-tax. Money is taken from people who earn it to pay higher interest rates to people who already have it. It's basic economics 101, but you never hear it discussed. It make you wonder how many people are unaware of this effect vs. how many people are aware of it but keep their mouths shut because they benefit from it.
- RockinRoel, on 10/13/2007, -4/+9In the USSR the resources were privatized, rather than nationalized, just like in capitalism. Only difference: they were owned by one person rather than many. The USSR was definitely not communist, it was a dictatorship. All serious communist ideals ended after Lenin. Trotski would have continued his ideals, but Stalin took over.
True communism has never been applied. Every communist regime is a dictatorship. I'm not saying that it would work, but don't judge the ideology by looking at the application. -
Show 51 - 100 of 349 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is