You must have never worked for a longterm stuggeling small business or one which went slowly belly up.

You must not know the meaning of the word poor.

OK, I see what you're saying. That first point is the one I was talking about and we are in agreement on that. I don't cede the second point, but have no desire to peruse it because even if correct, it's not good for the country (specifically, when income/wealth gaps are too large it is not good).

Turns out this new "lobbyist" was working for Fusion GPS, the "pee dossier" firm.

No conspiracy though, Don Jr. was obviously hoping that he was going to meeting to sell the US out to Putin. He even brought the United States in a suitcase to turn directly over to him - bold move considering the election was a few more months away.

http://www.newsweek.com/who-rinat-ak...rump-jr-637050

Individual retirement is so idiotic. You have no idea how long you're going to live, but pool enough people together and you know statistically how long all of them will live.

The biggest problem with retirement isn't who runs it, it's the insane idea that individuals should be responsible for knowing how long they'll need money for.

The second part is important because that is what the economic argument regarding income inequality hinges on and why this argument is timeless and will never be resolved.

the left cares more about income inequality
and the right cares more about overall productivity

both are important and a functioning society is a balance of these two goods. Too much inequality and your country is unstable and prone to crime and revolution, too little and your country becomes unproductive and stagnant and eventually starves.

You're premise seems to be that only non-poor can create jobs. Is that correct?

This isn't true at all.

No I know. I even had one in a far away world when I was poor by the gov standards of poor. Small lawn care business with one other employee.

You must not think out the things you think.

soviet union, china, venezuala... history is replete with examples of societies that grind to a halt after a few decades of radical egalitarianism

just as a thought experiment, high lvls of income disparity is bad on its face. If decreasing income disparity also improves the economy why doesn't it become the defacto ideology of every person and society of the world.

Why did they not mention he was there? I mean especially if it somehow helps to exonerate them via this weird conspiracy theory. Why all the lies and cover up?

From Alpha: Judge throws out conviction of woman who laughed during Jeff Sessions' testimony

Reminder that all you Trumpkins voted for the DoJ that actually finds this case to be worth prosecuting

Of course Jiggy is stupid enough to believe the Clinton Body Count Super Death Squad Conspiracy. Yes, Clinton had this guy "suicided" because he was implicating Flynn and the Trump administration in criminal activity. That makes sense.

the obama doj prosecuted Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, all doj's are baised and political

I could easily say

Reminder that all you Obamakins voted for the DoJ that actually finds this case to be worth prosecuting

...and you'd be right! I did vote for that, just like you voted for this!

I guess we should just let people violate their probation agreements? I don't care either way, but the case seems reasonable.

the CIA has everything under control

ok I'll concede that case even tho to me it seems obvious that if the political crisis did not happen this man would not have been prosecuted

what about dinesh d'souza whos the only man in the history of the USA to have gone to jail for the crime he commited

the point is that people with political power wield the justice system in their favor, bringing up that us Trumpkins voted for his misuse in this case is absurd.

i go on a 3 day hiatus and it's like wtf

Income inequality is a made up issue and has never and will never be a real problem in the USA.

cool, glad that's settled

But none of those countries were egalitarian. They may have said they were fighting inequality and may have actually reduced inequality somewhat, but their outcomes aren't synonymous with reducing inequality. The Nordic countries have less inequality and nearly as high if not higher productivity than the US, not to mention higher on just about every metric of happiness.

I don't think it is settled. There are still a lot of people out there with jealousy issues who truly believe they are worse off if their neighbor gets a raise. And as long as there are a significant amount of these mouth breathers there will be candidates like bernie sanders (the really old guy who ran against hillary for the Dem nomination for a couple weeks before everyone realized he would get crushed by GOATrump) who tried to appeal to the emotion and stupidity of these people.

Heck of thing to assert on today's date.

Gonna preface this with:

Holy ****, BitchiBee, you are actually capable of posting reasonably, please do more of this and less "lol top kek cuck" etc.

bahbahmickey, sadly, has an IQ of approximately 45.

This is the correct answer.

Yeah, dude, nothing about economic policy is predicated on assuming that rich people are "evil".

This also seems mostly right, with the caveat that in the case of "too little" income inequality, it has to be forced for it to be a problem.

Eh, I think it is more complicated that this. Mostly people will tend to fight for their own self interest at the margin, and even if there was some policy that would result in less inequality and more productivity in the long run it isn't a given that we would a) recognize it or b) be willing to make any short term sacrifices to implement it.

Again you illustrate why you are stupid.

Fundamental human nature is not changing. If you believe that lots of people "truly believe they are worse off if their neighbor gets a raise" (and to be clear, I agree with that to some degree. It is human nature to measure based on relative and not absolute factors) then that is never changing. And if those people's unhappiness causes them to nominate and elect candidates who you think will hurt the country then you have just identified why income inequality is a problem you imbecile.