General Discussion

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)

63. You're preaching to the converted, Priestly. :) Nothing irritates me

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:00 PM

Sep 2015

more than people who think we should be grateful to the ultrawealthy for funding our public colleges and other public works. Those are mostly conservatives, of course, who pride themselves on how responsible they are but somehow forget that funding colleges and retrofitting bridges is OUR job.

And since I believe we should see that all the very poor in all locations, including the elderly and disabled in their homes, have at least 2 meals a day EVERY SINGLE DAY to all our very poor, I see the typical occasional donations to food drives and Christmas meals as hypocritical and counterproductive.

I was simply pointing out some serious redistribution of income. And, yes, it's unfortunate that it is designated to charities instead of back to the people who produced that wealth, but what are they going to do, throw it out of helicopters?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rich Democrats Don�t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans [View all] 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 OP

File under 'Colour me not shocked'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #1

Amen billhicks76 Sep 2015 #90

Some of them around here state time and time again that they care more for social issues. stillwaiting Sep 2015 #96

It doesn't surprise me one bit that this thread will sink to the bottom. Township75 Sep 2015 #2

Sad but true FreakinDJ Sep 2015 #10

No, it might have been taken seriously SCantiGOP Sep 2015 #18

The photo is part of the Time article excerpted in the OP. nt merrily Sep 2015 #36

Exactly. This is pure, misleading right-wing propaganda brought here WHY? Hortensis Sep 2015 #37

The best way to share wealth is to support a safety net in your own country that makes JDPriestly Sep 2015 #61

You're preaching to the converted, Priestly. :) Nothing irritates me Hortensis Sep 2015 #63

"throw it out of helicopters?" JDPriestly Sep 2015 #72

And just getting to those lines may be onerous or effectively Hortensis Sep 2015 #93

Meals on Wheels is relatively well run. JDPriestly Sep 2015 #94

Well said, as always. historylovr Sep 2015 #70

Contrary to sinking to the bottm it's on the greatest threads page. totodeinhere Sep 2015 #77

KICK! SusanaMontana41 Sep 2015 #86

There's abundant evidence of that sad fact right here on this site. n/t RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #3

Yep. nt historylovr Sep 2015 #7

Yup. truebluegreen Sep 2015 #33

you got that right! wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #4

They knew each other via Jackson Stephens when Bill was Governor. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #17

GW calls Bill his brother from another mother. Seriously. Tommymac Sep 2015 #85

Of course! Juicy_Bellows Sep 2015 #5

K & R historylovr Sep 2015 #6

They work with Phil Gramm at UBS. Octafish Sep 2015 #8

Phil Gramm, one of the architects behind the abolishment BuelahWitch Sep 2015 #23

It really is a small world. Octafish Sep 2015 #71

Can anyone imagine Bernie Sanders hanging out with George Jr. like this? jalan48 Sep 2015 #9

Not surprising, considering that Little Boots hifiguy Sep 2015 #13

And the Hillary supporters are ok with this because? jalan48 Sep 2015 #27

They think, for some demented reason, hifiguy Sep 2015 #28

Bernie can hang with anyone, but he would not push for the same or similar policies. merrily Sep 2015 #38

I guess I just don't see him in a photo with George Jr. yucking it up. jalan48 Sep 2015 #42

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This one's worth double. merrily Sep 2015 #45

Oh for gosh sakes! Does that mean Obama is a.... CajunBlazer Sep 2015 #66

Huh? Posting a photo of Presidents means I can't tell a conservative from a liberal now? merrily Sep 2015 #68

Or Jimmy Carter. You remember how he was snubbed. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #107

of course they don't. "I've got mine, screw you" knows no party lines. NRaleighLiberal Sep 2015 #11

YES Thespian2 Sep 2015 #34

The one and only difference between most rich "Democrats" hifiguy Sep 2015 #12

And a rich white person is not racist to a rich back person, but to none rich blacks, now that is a LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #14

A dear friend of mine in law school was from a VERY well-to-do hifiguy Sep 2015 #29

Or the immigrant status, or the yellow skin or red skin or even jail time. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #32

Agreed. But zentrum Sep 2015 #15

Riddle Me This - How Could HRC Ever Feel The Pain Of The 99% cantbeserious Sep 2015 #16

She nor Bill never would be able to comprehend it. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #19

Roger That - HRC Represents The 1% First And Always - A Perfect 1% Stealth Canididate cantbeserious Sep 2015 #20

The Clintons ARE in top-tier of 1%-ers themselves as well. "CLINTONS� INCOME TOPS 99.9% OF AMERICANS" 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #24

For someone who was 'dead broke' when Bubba left the WH in 2001 hifiguy Sep 2015 #31

See link at Reply 50 for info on Clinton finances. merrily Sep 2015 #39

Bubba's? hifiguy Sep 2015 #44

I may have to edit that post. It seems closer to their combined INCOME that year. merrily Sep 2015 #50

WHAT? hifiguy Sep 2015 #54

Hey now. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #97

So broke they took the furniture with them, pocoloco Sep 2015 #106

If FDR could comprehend it, I suspect Bill and Hillary could too. Whether they do or not is a more pampango Sep 2015 #25

I suspect that FDR's poliomyelitis radically altered his outlook on life RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #35

yes redruddyred Sep 2015 #88

We don't know what motivated FDR. However, FDR never tried to play like he had no money. merrily Sep 2015 #40

Nor did his distant cousin Theodore. hifiguy Sep 2015 #55

Teddy Roosevelt and the Kennedys were wealthy but also JDPriestly Sep 2015 #64

All 99% are not in pain. And 99% means an annual income of under 389K*.Broad brush painting Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #46

Know Thy Enemy - Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - And Their MIC, Media And Political Minions cantbeserious Sep 2015 #48

Who are not the young students still in college included in this single social study. Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #49

And Your Point Is cantbeserious Sep 2015 #51

You first. Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #52

Not Taking Your Bait cantbeserious Sep 2015 #57

Too facile and too low. On income alone, it's $389,000 per annum. (And 50% are below $52,000) merrily Sep 2015 #69

^ Exhibit A for the title of this thread. Marr Sep 2015 #91

The title of the thread is based on a false premise. Folks want to go with it, be my guest. Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #103

Ugh. SoapBox Sep 2015 #21

+1000000 SammyWinstonJack Sep 2015 #74

Tell me, over and over and over and over again marym625 Sep 2015 #22

Are you a misogynist, mary? Or simply a hater? Which one is it? RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #41

are you really groucho marx? will you marry me? redruddyred Sep 2015 #89

Duh. PowerToThePeople Sep 2015 #26

Those would be the dems that are bankrolling HRC jkbRN Sep 2015 #30

It's not only the bankrolling. It's things like the media, the debate schedule, claiming merrily Sep 2015 #43

But there are in favor of a social safety net for the poor treestar Sep 2015 #47

I offer this only in the spirit of consideration, but why do you think that the... Shandris Sep 2015 #56

You have to have been "poor" to understand anything about the poor and therefore can not fashion Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #59

Yes, as a matter of fact you do. Shandris Sep 2015 #62

As long as they want a decent social safety net treestar Sep 2015 #83

What do you mean by "income inequality"? TeddyR Sep 2015 #53

It's called taxing the very rich, at much higher rates, like we had w/ the Eisenhower Administration 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #60

Why would you tax the very rich TeddyR Sep 2015 #65

It's called progressive taxation, hifiguy Sep 2015 #67

Progressive taxation = Soviet Russia? gollygee Sep 2015 #79

We are not Soviet Russia, and this is not a Republican website. geek tragedy Sep 2015 #102

"those who have worked for it" gollygee Sep 2015 #75

Do you think that anyone can really 'earn' a billion dollars a year? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #99

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #58

And, who went to Yale Law School? Hint: leveymg Sep 2015 #73

Jealously is a green eyed monster, and threads like this are good evidence of that truth. Fred Sanders Sep 2015 #104

Someone ought to recall under what circumstances Bill Clinton and Barack Obama grew up DFW Sep 2015 #115

Republican Lites, not Democrats . orpupilofnature57 Sep 2015 #76

Yep, when it comes to $$$$$$'s often R = D = I. n/t RKP5637 Sep 2015 #78

There might some truth in this study, but a "group of Yale Law students" cheapdate Sep 2015 #80

I know 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #81

Income inequality is a hugely important issue. cheapdate Sep 2015 #82

And last I checked, the fight is on 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #84

I wish the dialogue were about *wealth* inequality rather than *income* inequality. Marr Sep 2015 #92

+everything. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #100

100% agree with you. cheapdate Sep 2015 #108

Voters figured that out quite a while ago. See the poll numbers for both Political Parties. And see sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #87

And Americans care little about global income inequality Recursion Sep 2015 #95

For people who are both Democrats and also Wealthy Privileged Elites, to which group do you GoneFishin Sep 2015 #98

Bookmarked daleanime Sep 2015 #101

Not surprising in the least. TM99 Sep 2015 #105

+10 nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #110

These people care very deeply... you'll have to excuse me, sniff... about the injustice of it all whereisjustice Sep 2015 #109

Just "everyday people", in a pigs eye. n/t 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #111

The Gated Community Elete... StarzGuy Sep 2015 #112

"will never change"? 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #114

People that pay attention noticed the country go from regulated capitalism to plutocracy. Rex Sep 2015 #113