400 Americans

[Avatar4321]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

 

[Redfish]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

and most of them are democrats--------------ya dumb shit.

 

[Listening]

Well hazelnut is still bungy posting. He drops his turd, then exits.

I think the whole topic is worth discussing at a basic level. In a truly free market economy, no-one should be able to get rich. Why does that not work....

But then nut says nothing about that...he goes to jobs and somehow thinks the two are linked.

My guess is that he is still hungover from the elections.

 

[kaz]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

I guess the news doesn't get to gay Arabia. Actually the job creators portion of the tax cut was the only part that Obama cut.

As for wealth, to get to that Stat you are using a bull shit calculation that doesn't count things like home ownership and retirement money. But regardless, even if it were true, the failure is on the part of the bottom half who aren't working and saving enough.

Liberalism, to never have to take personal responsibility for your own actions. Or in this case, inactions.

 

[georgephillip]

But regardless, even if it were true, the failure is on the part of the bottom half who aren't working and saving enough

Because the bottom half haven't received a fair share of rising productivity gains over the past forty years.

The U.S. productivity farce

 

[kaz]

But regardless, even if it were true, the failure is on the part of the bottom half who aren't working and saving enough

Because the bottom half haven't received a fair share of rising productivity gains over the past forty years.

The U.S. productivity farce

Their fair share? Yes comrade, they were not given their fair share. Wealth is distributed, not earned. It is the job of government to use force to distribute it fairly. And it's fair that politicians get the most since they are the ones who do the real work.

 

[georgephillip]

Their fair share? Yes comrade, they were not given their fair share. Wealth is distributed, not earned. It is the job of government to use force to distribute it fairly. And it's fair that politicians get the most since they are the ones who do the real work.

Productivity growth provides the basis for the growth of living standards; since 1970, government has redistributed those benefits upwards to the benefit of those who pay for the election campaigns and retirements of politicians in both major parties. Since 2000, in particular, wages and compensation for typical workers have lagged significantly behind the nation's rapid productivity growth. How have incomes for the richest 0.1% of Americans fared during that time?

 

[kaz]

Their fair share? Yes comrade, they were not given their fair share. Wealth is distributed, not earned. It is the job of government to use force to distribute it fairly. And it's fair that politicians get the most since they are the ones who do the real work.

Productivity growth provides the basis for the growth of living standards; since 1970, government has redistributed those benefits upwards to the benefit of those who pay for the election campaigns and retirements of politicians in both major parties. Since 2000, in particular, wages and compensation for typical workers have lagged significantly behind the nation's rapid productivity growth. How have incomes for the richest 0.1% of Americans fared during that time?

I'm not into debating your anti-rich rhetoric, Comrade. What a loser you are to make excuses for lack of achievement in this country. Never have people been so free in the middle of such wealth to get it. But you have to work hard, care about your job, invest in yourself. It's not up to me to make up for your lazy, greedy gimme ass that wants money without working for it.

 

[georgephillip]

But you have to work hard, care about your job, invest in yourself. It's not up to me to make up for your lazy, greedy gimme ass that wants money without working for it.

"Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005.

"From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period."

Have execs and workers in finance, not to mention CEOs, been working harder than your lazy, gullible ass since '78 or have they obtained their increased wealth by bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies?

The U.S. productivity farce

 

[kaz]

But you have to work hard, care about your job, invest in yourself. It's not up to me to make up for your lazy, greedy gimme ass that wants money without working for it.

"Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005.

"From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period."

Have execs and workers in finance, not to mention CEOs, been working harder than your lazy, gullible ass since '78 or have they obtained their increased wealth by bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies?

The U.S. productivity farce

All your Marxist rhetoric adds up to nothing. If you care about your job and work at it, success and money in this country are as easy as falling off a log. That is unlike the opportunity of almost anyone else in the history of man. But all you do is keep whining that not enough money is being distributed to you for not working for it. Grow up and grow a pair and take care of yourself. It's easy in this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

You mean the tax cut extension for the middle class that The Obama forced thru Congress in 2009?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

 

[SwimExpert]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

That's not really a fair and accurate description.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

That's not really a fair and accurate description.

How does this not accurately describe the welfare state and federal entitlement programs?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Erm, so the 400 wealthiest Americans can't create more jobs because Obama extended their tax cuts? Well, then, let's cut out that tax break altogether and see if they can create more jobs that way.

OK so instead of having onerous regulations and some kind of tax relief we'll have onerous regulations AND confiscatory taxes. Brilliant!
You understand the Bush tax cuts expired, right? And growth still sucks and the middle class still has stagnating income. Why would you want to replicate failure?

3.9% GDP is not bad. Better than at just about any time during the Bush administration.

Cherry pick much? The overall growth has been sub 3%. Coming out of a recession that is horrible. And since most of that growth has concentrated at the top you get income inqueality.
Democrat polciies have directly led to rising incomes for the wealthy and stagnant incomes for everyone else. Why is this difficult to grasp?

There haven't been any Democratic policies. You said so yourself. You said Obama just continued Bush's policies.

Link to where I said that? Because I certainly never did nor would have.

Remember what happened the last time you denied saying something?

lolol.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK so instead of having onerous regulations and some kind of tax relief we'll have onerous regulations AND confiscatory taxes. Brilliant!
You understand the Bush tax cuts expired, right? And growth still sucks and the middle class still has stagnating income. Why would you want to replicate failure?

3.9% GDP is not bad. Better than at just about any time during the Bush administration.

Cherry pick much? The overall growth has been sub 3%. Coming out of a recession that is horrible. And since most of that growth has concentrated at the top you get income inqueality.
Democrat polciies have directly led to rising incomes for the wealthy and stagnant incomes for everyone else. Why is this difficult to grasp?

There haven't been any Democratic policies. You said so yourself. You said Obama just continued Bush's policies.

Link to where I said that? Because I certainly never did nor would have.

Remember what happened the last time you denied saying something?

lolol.

Link?
You have nothing

 

[SwimExpert]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

That's not really a fair and accurate description.

How does this not accurately describe the welfare state and federal entitlement programs?

Liberals believe in voluntary servitude as the "right" thing to do. They believe that involuntary servitude is a necessary and lesser evil when you don't comply.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

That's not really a fair and accurate description.

How does this not accurately describe the welfare state and federal entitlement programs?

Liberals believe in voluntary servitude as the "right" thing to do. They believe that involuntary servitude is a necessary and lesser evil when you don't comply.

Distinction w/o a difference.

 

[georgephillip]

All your Marxist rhetoric adds up to nothing. If you care about your job and work at it, success and money in this country are as easy as falling off a log.

You got yours, right Rockefeller?
"'Après moi le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society,' wrote Karl Marx in Capital (Vol. 1, Part III, Chapter Ten, Section 5). What Marx said in the late nineteenth century still holds true today."
Critical Montages Apr s moi le d luge

 

[Avatar4321]

So this is a problem but you can't explain why. Yet we have to show why we are defending against it.

if you think it's a problem make a case. But no one is obligated to accept your premise that it's bad when you're too lazy to make one.

the best defense of course is: thou shall not steal.

why should we steal what others earn using the violence of government to solve a non existent problem?

Liberals believe in state-enforced involuntary servitude because it is "the right thing to do".

That's not really a fair and accurate description.

How does this not accurately describe the welfare state and federal entitlement programs?

Liberals believe in voluntary servitude as the "right" thing to do. They believe that involuntary servitude is a necessary and lesser evil when you don't comply.

and the rest of us fought a civil war to end slavery. So forgive us if we don't want to reinstate it simply because a progressive wants power over us