Bill O'Reilly: The poor have it too good

[Mims44 1,872]

Has a poor man or women ever created a job? (heads will explode)....... : - )

Well, in the sense of, all things are relative, yes, I have.

Did your head explode?

The poor uninformed soul doesn't realize jobs like this one was created by a poor man or woman.... https://ssa.usajobs....tails/401255800

Poor simpleton. Oh well. At least you have sewing.......

Historically? Yes tons of jobs created by poor men and women in America.

Right now, nope... some.. but not many.

Hell I could create more jobs right now, my business would go under quick fast and in a hurry... but I could do it for a bit:)

[cooltigger21 0]

I'll just stick this here. http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-liberal-vision-for-the-poor-vs-the-conservative-vision-for-the-poor/

[AFTiger 282]

http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes

[Mims44 1,872]

I'll just stick this here. http://rightwingnews...n-for-the-poor/

Something else to keep in mind. 100 years ago in America 1 median earner in a family was enough to be kept above the poverty line. Today we are either at or very close to two (this was from 2008, not sure how much better or worse we have become)

That being said the old antebellum republican thought of "the poor deserve to be poor" because of laziness or whatever does not hold true today. Someone can work a full time job, not waste money on non-necessities (tobacco/alcohol) and still have trouble keeping their head above water.

[AUDub 11,153]

I'll just stick this here. http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-liberal-vision-for-the-poor-vs-the-conservative-vision-for-the-poor/

If this is the kind of bat*** insanity you're using to shape your worldview, it explains a lot.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

http://www.billoreil...4250470725.html

h/t @Josh_Moon

The poor have it too good? Really Bill? Wow! Admittedly, I don't watch him, but that is just an absurd quote. How could one literally state such a thing?

[AUDub 11,153]

I'll just stick this here. http://rightwingnews...n-for-the-poor/

Something else to keep in mind. 100 years ago in America 1 median earner in a family was enough to be kept above the poverty line. Today we are either at or very close to two (this was from 2008, not sure how much better or worse we have become)

That being said the old antebellum republican thought of "the poor deserve to be poor" because of laziness or whatever does not hold true today. Someone can work a full time job, not waste money on non-necessities (tobacco/alcohol) and still have trouble keeping their head above water.

As an example, Titan's food stamp article the other day. Those people worked their asses off and still couldn't make ends meet without support.

[cptau 169]

Hasn't it almost always been this way regard less of who is in power? What has Obama done to make it better? Middle class wages are less today than they were just a few years ago.

Well, I'm not here to defend Obama, but remember, distribution is not just a function of tax policy (which, for the record, despite O'Reilly's rants about increases, taxes have remained at the Bush levels...or LOWER... for those below the top brackets over the past 6 years).

For example, trade policy (i.e., selective protectionism) has been quite explicitly designed to put manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. By contrast, doctors and other highly-paid professionals (who comprise much of the one percent) have been largely protected from international competition. Similarly, our policy of patent protection redistributes hundreds of billions of dollars a year from ordinary workers to drug companies and other beneficiaries of these government-granted monopolies.

The government's labor policies have also been much more hostile to workers over the last three decades, making it far more difficult to form unions. The Federal Reserve Board has also quite explicitly adopted monetary policies (e.g., by supporting an over-valued dollar that has eliminated millions of manufacturing jobs and put downward pressure on the wages of non-college educated workers; also policies that raises interest rates to keep people from getting jobs any time the labor market gets tight enough to support wage growth) that keep unemployment higher than in the years prior to 1980.

So it's whole set of policies that have redistributed a massive amount of income upward over the last 30 years.

A politician who wanted to reduce inequality could focus on having less government action in these areas.

Medical doctors haven't been effected yet because the use of off shore remote doctors lacks acceptance by patients or is not technically possible, yet. The government does allow many foreign doctors to practice here because we lack doctors in rural areas and in certain specialicities. You can off shore many other jobs because of Internet connectivity now. Programming, engineering, help desk, etc.

Manufacturing has been moving around since the industrial revolution started. From Britain to the U.S. Northeast, from there to the U.S. South, and now to Asia.

If the poor have it too easy, it maybe because there is a lack of incentives in the market to leave government welfare assistance programs and work. That lack of incentives also effects people who decline to obtain training and education needed for jobs. That puts us into the core argument. Unskilled wages are too low even when paying no income taxes to compete with welfare.

[homersapien 11,385]

You want to see real poverty? Go to some country outside the United States. You'll see what poverty is.

Wut? lol....

He's a trip huh?

[homersapien 11,385]

classic liberal bs.

It illustrative of failure of "trickle down" economics. If that is a "bs" illustration, how would you represent it?

Or do you even acknowledge we have a problem?

[homersapien 11,385]

I'll just stick this here. http://rightwingnews...n-for-the-poor/

If this is the kind of bat*** insanity you're using to shape your worldview, it explains a lot.

Just goes to show how bad things have become. Tigger is now outsourcing his idiocy.

[RunInRed 16,424]

http://www.ntu.org/f...ys-income-taxes

Well of course, they make the majority of the money! Who would you expect to pay income taxes?

[AURaptor 1,125]

What O'Reilly (and apparently you) seem to not understand is that maybe people don't want government that rigs the deck for the rich ...

And of course, the irony is, there has been a "redistribution of wealth" in this country over the last 30 years ... upward.

Trillions of $ spent on redistribution of the wealth on the poor with the 'war on poverty' and what good has it done ?

This agenda of 'wealth redistribution and income inequity ' is the same mantra the socialist / communist have been yapping about for 150 years.

Only now, we have a President who is all in favor of it.

[Mims44 1,872]

What O'Reilly (and apparently you) seem to not understand is that maybe people don't want government that rigs the deck for the rich ...

And of course, the irony is, there has been a "redistribution of wealth" in this country over the last 30 years ... upward.

Trillions of $ spent on redistribution of the wealth on the poor with the 'war on poverty' and what good has it done ?

This agenda of 'wealth redistribution and income inequity ' is the same mantra the socialist / communist have been yapping about for 150 years.

Only now, we have a President who is all in favor of it.

That's because one feeds the other, they are both not working.

Trickle down doesn't work, instead of changing it... they keep it and try to give government handouts to lessen the financial burden created on many of the lower/middle class.

[DKW 86 7,426]

classic liberal bs.

Nope. It is the truth. You too will see it soon.

WATCH THE VIDEO.

IT HAS A GREAT DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE THINK WEALTH DISTRIBUTION LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

WE ARE WAY OUT OF WHACK IN THE US FROM DECADES OF BLINDLY FOLLOWING THE OLD THINKING.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A STATIC REALITY. WE HAVE OVER CORRECTIONS ALL THE TIME.

WHEN CARTER WAS PRESIDENT, WE HAD AN IDIOTIC PERCEPTION OF REALITY AND REAGAN WAS RIGHT.

NOW, THE PENDULUM HAS SWUNG THE OTHER WAY. WE NEED A CORRECTION THE OTHER WAY.

REAGAN WAS A DEMOCRAT, HE CHANGED IN HIS POLITICAL CAREER. THINGS HAVE CHANGED AGAIN.

[homersapien 11,385]

Apparently, Tigger or Raptor didn't watch it the first time you posted that link.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

classic liberal bs.

Nope. It is the truth. You too will see it soon.

WATCH THE VIDEO.

IT HAS A GREAT DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE THINK WEALTH DISTRIBUTION LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

WE ARE WAY OUT OF WHACK IN THE US FROM DECADES OF BLINDLY FOLLOWING THE OLD THINKING.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A STATIC REALITY. WE HAVE OVER CORRECTIONS ALL THE TIME.

WHEN CARTER WAS PRESIDENT, WE HAD AN IDIOTIC PERCEPTION OF REALITY AND REAGAN WAS RIGHT.

NOW, THE PENDULUM HAS SWING THE OTHER WAY. WE NEED A CORRECTION THE OTHER WAY.

REAGAN WAS A DEMOCRAT, HE CHANGED IN HIS POLITICAL CAREER. THINGS HAVE CHANGED AGAIN.

I really wish more people understood this basic concept. The answers aren't the same when the conditions are totally different. The world is a dynamic place, not static. The right answers may not fit the preconceived notions of one's ideology. Common sense and basic principle trump a convicted ideological idiot.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Is there any country/society in the world where income is fairly distributed, assets equalized, and no class differences between rich and poor.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Is there any country/society in the world where income is fairly distributed, assets equalized, and no class differences between rich and poor.

A rational and informed person who grew up in the United States during the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen, would not be asking this question.

[channonc 466]

Is there any country/society in the world where income is fairly distributed, assets equalized, and no class differences between rich and poor.

Who is advocating assets to be equalized? I think it's fair to say there should and always be rich folks. The question is, should 1% of this nation own 40% of the wealth in this country? That seems way more than just lopsided.

[Mims44 1,872]

Is there any country/society in the world where income is fairly distributed, assets equalized, and no class differences between rich and poor.

Who is advocating assets to be equalized? I think it's fair to say there should and always be rich folks. The question is, should 1% of this nation own 40% of the wealth in this country? That seems way more than just lopsided.

Only until the technological singularity....

[WarTim 3,456]

What O'Reilly (and apparently you) seem to not understand is that maybe people don't want government that rigs the deck for the rich ...

And of course, the irony is, there has been a "redistribution of wealth" in this country over the last 30 years ... upward.

Trillions of $ spent on redistribution of the wealth on the poor with the 'war on poverty' and what good has it done ?

This agenda of 'wealth redistribution and income inequity ' is the same mantra the socialist / communist have been yapping about for 150 years.

Only now, we have a President who is all in favor of it.

Idiocy defined by this WH daily.......

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Go to Argentina and see how the socialistic policies of he Perons have helped the poor....NOT.

[AUTUmike 79]

Is there any country/society in the world where income is fairly distributed, assets equalized, and no class differences between rich and poor.

Is there a country with complete income equality?--no. But that quite obvious fact isn't what anyone is referring to either. Instead, the issue is merely that inequality needs to be decreased.

The bottom line is this: If you disagree about the means by which inequality should be addressed, then that's fine since policy is subjective. But denying that income inequality is harmful to the economy is ignoring economic FACT.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Go to Argentina and see how the socialistic policies of he Perons have helped the poor....NOT.

Are you serious? Juan Peron hasn't been in power since 1955 unless you count 9 months in the mid seventies.