3 ms·
> So what solution do you offer? It's just reactionary to oppose a solution. This argument is only sound if you assume things can't be made worse than the stat
by tengbretson 5y ago
> So what solution do you offer? It's just reactionary to oppose a solution.
This argument is only sound if you assume things can't be made worse than the status quo. They obviously can.
- wolverine876 5y agoNo, we have problems to solve, and we have a responsibility to solve them. Just shooting down what other people say is not acceptable in any serious situations - for example, if that's what you do at work you'll find yourself on the outside looking in. It's also a signal of an argument with no real effort behind it.
- nightski 5y agoI wasn't shooting it down. I was asking you what the government realistically was going to do with that money to solve wealth inequality, but you never answered that. Based on the last several years of obscene spending with little results I'd say it's a tough question to answer.
- wolverine876 5y agoI see lots of results. What do you mean? How do you measure it? Again, what is your solution?
- nightski 5y agoWealth inequality is relatively straightforward to measure, and it has steadily been getting much worse. So I am not sure what results you are seeing. That is the topic of the post you originally replied to anyways.
- wolverine876 5y agoI see lots of return for government spending. I wasn't addressing inequality in that statement. Also, it could be much worse; we don't know what it would be without the current government investment.