i don’t especially care how many liars you know. i’m pro gay marriage, and opposed
to the death penalty. Gay marriage causes me no harm, and i think that life is pretty sacred.

i agree many poor people had crappy parents, and that’s not their fault. So isn’t the solution to enact public policy that incentivizes
good parenting, rather than providing incentives for young girls to have kids and not get married? and shouldn’t public policy encourage hard work and good long-term decision making?

Conservatives do not say that if something feels good it must be bad. where the hell did you get that idea? boy i’d love to see you support that. Things are bad if they hurt you or others. Liberals
put too much emphasis on short term gratification ( celebrating casual sex, legalizing drugs), and
ignore the inconvenient long term effects.

I’ve never heard anyone say that anyone who fails, is an idiot.

You are really taking a cue from Paul, and responding to stupidity which no one has ever said. i said most poor people are poor because of making bad decisions, and i stand by that. some are just unlucky, some
don’t have the ability to rise out of poverty.

People who at least go to community college and don’t have kids until
they are married, are rarely poor.

“she needed a good
smack.”.

hilarious. what does it say about your positions, that you cannot defend them
against my simple statements? that instead of responding to what i actually said, that you are instead responding to nonsense that no one ever said?

when my beliefs are unable to withdtandnthe scrutiny of simple challenges, thats the day i get new beliefs. you’ll never see me dodge that way, i don’t have to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe I’ll turn into a meme, on the same day that you display a speck of intellectual honesty.

“Gosh fellers, i went to
chicago once and i didn’t see anyone get murdered, so it can’t be all that bad.”

i can readily admit that the GOP tax cuts in KS were a flop. I’d
be a maniac to deny that. But you can’t admit that the liberals
have severely damaged Chicago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“show
me a government policy that did or doesnthat.”

Bill clinton kicked
millions of people off welfare. they went back to work. it got people to get off the dole
and get back to work. During the depression, many social programs
didn’t just send checks to people, we paid them
to work. this isn’t rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

show me the nuttiest thing i’ve said today. have fun. who says i expect total agreement? once again you are responding to
something i never said. you’re constantly making stuff up
and pretending i said them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead
You need to finish reading before your head explodes
Remember now, you always get confused about this
liberal good
authoritarian bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the answer is common sense, good values, and hard work. Do you disagree?

from where i sit, the conservative platform is more reflective of that notion, than the liberal platform ( the liberal platform being, gimme gimme gimme).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you deny that what bill clinton ( and Newt Gingrich) did, worked?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why has the democratic
party completely turned its back on the principles underlying what Clinton did? Anyone who advocates for doing what Clinton did, would never ever ever get the democratic nomination for
any office. Today’s democratic party, advocates for the opposite of what Clinton and Gingrich did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why.

I'll stick with what I said previously, you can go on beating dead horses.

As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

"You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why."

In other words..."answering that question honestly would make my side look wrong, and I can't ever do that, so I refuse to answer..."

"As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much"

That's the liberal battle, not the conservative battle. Unlike liberals, conservatives realize that wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Bill Gates earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for you and I to scrounge for. Stop obsessing over the wealthy. It's so pointless. Would you or I be better off, if all the billionaires never existed? Or if they become poor tomorrow?

It's not fair that we have billionaires and poor people. But it's not sinister, either. Except for a few criminals, the rich did not become rich, by taking from the poor. They created wealth, they didn't steal it.

You know what happens when the rich get richer? Do you think they put the money in their mattresses or bury it in their yards? Or do they spend some, invest some, save some, pay taxes with some, and give some to charity? All of which, helps the economy.

The wealthy are not causing poverty. They just aren't. Do you really not see that? Seriously? If you want what they have, do what they did.

"If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water"

I disagree that's happening. But not all of us need to be carried all the way back to shore by someone else. Most of us, once above water, can get ourselves to shore. That's exactly why, when Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, they didn't all starve to death - they went to work. There is incredible opportunity to be middle class in this country. It's harder than it was 40 years ago, no question. But still within reach for most of us. For those who truly can't take care of themselves, I'm happy to pay taxes for well-run programs that help them.

Stop obsessing over the wealthy. It's a terrific liberal rallying cry ,that the 1% are to blame for everything. But it's demonstrably false bullsh*t. It doesn't even come close to making any sense.

Wealth isn't finite. It's just not. If it was, GDP wouldn't ever change.

Interesting to see what comes out when your head explodes.
You certainly can read a lot into a couple of sentences.
I understand the welfare trap.
We need to enable, not endow people and we need to make it work.
We haven't done it consistently and certainly not the Republicans, though you claim Gingrich did by hanging on Clinton's coattails.

If you think wealth distribution is not a problem in this country, maybe you should talk to a few billionaires. Bill Gates would be a good start.
You can read something he wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/bill...ch-wealth.html

when i ask a question, yiybeither didge or accuse
me of being angry. i’m not the least bit angry, OK?

can you tell me in your own words, why it’s “a problem” if Bill Gates gets richer because Microsoft’s stick goes up? And if he thinks it’s so bad, why does he accept the stick options?

You are making zero sense. Bill Gates didn’t steal from anybody. if he burned all his money, the wealth gap would decrease, but who is better off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then i read the article, which you didn’t, either that or you didn’t understand it. Gates said the wealth gap isnt “fair”, and i agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s a problem.

Pete, in your words, what is the problem with his wealth? he has pledged to give away tens of billions of dollars. would
we be better off, if gates never made his fortune? Who would be better off, and how?

You are jealous of him, and feel entitled to what he has, but aren’t willing to do what he did to get it.

This is why one of the 10 commandments is not to covet your
neighbors goods.

Bill Gates’ wealth might not be fair. But it’s not problematic. How many thousands of upper middle class jobs are there at microsoft? how
many people will be helped when he gives his money away ( and he seems to be taking his time with that).

he created his wealth, he didn’t take it from anyone else. Do you agree with that, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, I'm too old to worry about that. I just worry about what my kids will have to deal with. They all are gainfully employed, straight enough but I still worry about what they will have to deal with.
I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.
Feel free to read what Warren Buffet said but I'm sure you still wont be able to say that there is a problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7812736.html

If it's a volume issue, then why do we want to increase the volume of people by allowing even more legal or illegal immigrants added to the already 11 to 30 million illegals already here.

Spence said: "Number [of gun deaths] is high because Chicago has a big population, when you compare the homicide rate to other US cities it doesn’t even make the top 20."

Replacing people with your above stated volume issues you get:
more people more accidents more people more fish caught more people more costly disasters on the coast areas More People more deaths by Guns or by other weapons . . .

Let's fix the volume issue--start with importing less people . . .

Pete, then we both agree that we worry what our kids will have to deal with. we have that
in common. and that’s something, hopefully.

I have 3 boys ages 12, 9, and 7. And my middle guy will be someone who might need a little help. i’m hoping i can give him everything he needs, but obviously i hope he outlives me by several decades, so he might need help after i’m gone. So i do know that worry, i really do.

I feel things are a lot harder than they were for my father. he bought our house when he was 26 years old, only paid 1.5 times what his annual salary was at that time, and sold the house 40 years later for 6x what he paid. I will never see anything like that. Hell, in january I’ll have ben in my house for 15 years, and i dont think it’s worth a dollar more than what i paid, plus what i put into it. Zero. That’s how it goes in CT.

If wealthy people become
more wealthy by creating wealth, not by taking it from someone else...then why should
we care? In all sincerity, can you address that? Why should i care if the Obamas become billionaires, which they probably will? how does that hurt me or my kids? I just don’t see it...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if Mr Buffet feels his wealth is bad, why does he keep it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you sound jealous and this is stupid.....lot's of people with stupid money do really good things with their stupid money...

He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...his-estate.asp

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete just wants an obama car to go with his obamacare and obama phone :)

You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.

You’ve been going on and on about how bad it is that some are wealthy while others are not. i’m just listening to you...

i’ll ask
for the third or fourth time, how would anyone be better off, if gates and buffet didn’t accumulate their wealth, but worked at minimum wage jobs instead? You have said wealth inequality is a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Bill Gates didn't start MS, perhaps I wouldn't be wasting time here arguing with you.

Last time I check both Gates and Buffet had given away billions of dollars to charity.

last time i checked, each was still worth tens of billions of dollars. If they think that degree of wealth is immoral, they could have given it away a long time ago. So it seems pretty phony for them to complain about how horrible their wealth is. They only have it, because they choose to keep it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

once again, i ask
an obvious question, you can’t answwr it seriously without making me look correct, so you lob a stupid insult. Notice a pattern here.

For the tenth time, if Buffet thinks his wealth is bad, why is he clinging to iit?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is part of what Warren Buffett said in a Time magazine article.
You think that saying Wealth inequality is an issue, makes it a personal moral choice. It's a societal moral choice which is obviously far too progressive for you, unlike Warren Buffett.
You think that with the US being in the top ten in GDP per capita, we cannot afford healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Now don't let the voices in your head misconstrue what I am saying as that I think uncontrolled spending will accomplish anything. We need a government that works for all the people, we don't have that.
We are getting left behind by the rest of the world inch by inch.


Let’s think again about 1930. Imagine someone then predicting that real per capita GDP would increase sixfold during my lifetime. My parents would have immediately dismissed such a gain as impossible. If somehow, though, they could have imagined it actually transpiring, they would concurrently have predicted something close to universal prosperity.

Instead, another invention of the ensuing decades, the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.


In 1776, America set off to unleash human potential by combining market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. This foundation was an act of genius that in only 241 years converted our original villages and prairies into $96 trillion of wealth.

The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

You can read the whole thing here:
http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffe...th-in-america/

I must have missed the part about both of them believing wealth is immoral...they just seem to really enjoy spreading it around.

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

Is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation, hurting anybody? If so, how?

One time, just one time, can you answer the question that I asked?

Then you weren't reading Pete's articles. They both said their wealth is unethical. Not so unethical, I notice, to motivate them to give it away.

You miss everything that doesn't serve your agenda, which is why you can never criticize it or disagree with it.

I agree they are generous. That's one of the upsides of the uber-wealthy. I keep asking what the downside is, and all I get, is insults and crickets chirping.

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

Show me where in any article I linked, it says the accumulation of Wealth is unethical.
All of them do say that there are societal issues with Wealth distribution and power.
You claim there are none.