A Spark of Truth in a Sea of Lies

[Steelfoot]

This fine book is a must read for all decent, clean, moral, patriotic Americans.

It exposes the vile lie that the urban mudskins are victims of oppression in this country.

Indeed, the exact opposite is true: the innercity buh element is raised from infancy to be violent, stupid, shiftless, parasitic criminals.

Everybody knows this, but the smelly, sociopathic bastard-born shimebos and their scuzzy coalburner apologists and enablers screech and rant their raw hatred at anyone who speaks the truth.

The world's most pernicious, evil pestilence is not the North Koreans, ISIS, Russians, Ayatollahs or the Taliban. It is the hate-crazed, feral nightcrawlers of the melan element in our midst.

It's time to take action to save America from the diseased hoogabooga horde.

Know what we mean?

As a conservative, let me just say.....FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. Have a good day.

Thank you.
Know what we mean?

 

[Steelfoot]

The world's most pernicious, evil pestilence is not the North Koreans, ISIS, Russians, Ayatollahs or the Taliban. It is the hate-crazed, feral nightcrawlers of the melan element in our midst.It's time to take action to save America from the diseased hoogabooga horde.
Know what we mean?

As a conservative, let me just say.....FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. Have a good day.

Thank you.
Know what we mean?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Thank you.
Know what we mean?

I'm guessing you mean thank you, right?

 

[MikeK]

We are individualists in this country, and we are capitalists, and your idea is anathema to most of us raised in the U.S.

Yes we are (regulated) capitalists, which is a good thing. But too much of any good thing, including personal wealth, is counterproductive.

Paying fair share of taxes could be massively improved upon by closing loop holes in the tax codes. Being strict about breaking up businesses too big to fail, cracking down on virtual monopolies. Those things could even the playing field for people, but if a person is smart enough, lucky enough, and puts the effort into it to become a multi-millionaire, no one has the right to take that away from him/her.

All of the things mentioned above, along with a few others, would serve to improve our general economic health, each in its own way. But in this discussion I am concerned with the singular radical act of removing the very root of the problem, the pathological greed which has contaminated the substance of the Great American Experiment.

Nothing I've said or suggested opposes your defense of the right to become a multi-millionaire. To accumulate twenty millions dollars in personal wealth does indeed qualify as multi-millionaire status.

I'm no economist, as you can tell. I have heard of these steps to make things a bit more fair. But taking away people's greed motivation has not worked in the great communist experiments in Russia and China.

I haven't proposed transition to communism, so your comparison is neither relevant nor valid.

Greed is not our best attribute as humans, but it sure gets people trying.

As is outright larceny and brute force theft. But fortunately there are proscriptions to control those impulses. What I'm proposing is an analogous form of control.

If we can control the marketplace where greed is going too far it is better than taking away individuals' rights and freedoms to be as wealthy as they can manage.

As we have clearly seen, the marketplace is virtually (if not absolutely) impossible to control because it is much too intricate and subject to a continuous progression of changes.

Consider this analogy:

We Americans have a right to keep and bear arms but government has arbitrarily imposed a limit on that right. E.g., there is nothing in the Second Amendment that restricts my right to own a 105mm Howitzer or a shoulder-held missile launcher. Both are "arms." So why can't I have one of each and maybe a few more massively destructive arms? The answer is because the potential for misuse is too great -- as is the potential for the corruptive influence of excessive wealth.

Please think about that.

 

[OldLady]

in this discussion I am concerned with the singular radical act of removing the very root of the problem
IMHO, it won't remove greed. That lives in the heart of humankind. It may be a form of OCD, since some are a lot more prone to it than others, but you won't remove it by taking away an individual's accumulated wealth. They will find a way around you. They will open accounts in their children's names, in their cousins' names. They will put money in Caymans.
Maybe lobotomies would work, though. I'm not sure.

 

[MikeK]

I wouldn't have voted for Bernie, as much as I liked him, because of this. I believe in universal health care and basic social welfare programs as investment in our population's long term health and stability, but Bernie was too focused on taking down the 1%.

Too bad you've missed the importance of Bernie's intention to rid us of the financial ruling class.

I love beautiful things, like the Crown Jewels and the Faberge Eggs, the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, The Palace of Versailles. None of those things would exist without immense wealth behind their creation.

Not so.

How would a limit on your personal assets interfere with your appreciation of any of those things?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It's NOBODY'S business what another person earn.

 

[MikeK]

Thank you. This stuff worries me seeing that so many are being swept away towards thinking like his. America has lost its way. We seem to be moving in the direction of choosing between Communism and Fascism. Like I said, I'm staying grounded in the country the Founders gave us.

As stated earlier, if the Founders were able to anticipate the kind of bounty this Nation was capable of producing you may rest assured they would have included wealth-controlling elements in our Constitution. Because if any single factor is capable of bringing America down it is the toxic effect of uninhibited greed and those wise men were capable of understanding that.

Re: your believe that we are moving toward choosing between fascism and communism; while I agree with the fascism potential I will ask you to explain what aspect(s) of communism you are concerned about.

Can it be you are among the few remaining subscribers to the warnings of Senator Joseph McCarthy?

 

[MikeK]

It's NOBODY'S business what another person earn.

It's the government's business -- and that's what I'm talking about. Nothing more.

 

[MikeK]

in this discussion I am concerned with the singular radical act of removing the very root of the problem
IMHO, it won't remove greed. That lives in the heart of humankind. It may be a form of OCD, since some are a lot more prone to it than others, but you won't remove it by taking away an individual's accumulated wealth. They will find a way around you. They will open accounts in their children's names, in their cousins' names. They will put money in Caymans.
Maybe lobotomies would work, though. I'm not sure.

There undoubtedly will be individuals who will try to circumvent the wealth limitation, just as there now are those who break the law -- and those who are caught go to prison. Fortunately they are a tiny minority .

Of course you're right that a fixed limit on accumulated wealth will not eradicate greed from the human condition, but it certainly will reduce its effect on our national economy and the harm it has caused over the years.

The major difference will be the radically lowered bar. Greed will impel many to accumulate to that level, but the vast majority of those who reach that limited level will stop there rather than risk prison and massive fines. An equally large number will simply adjust their inclinations to that level and will be satisfied with having a $20 million fortune -- which is quite a bit when you think about it.

Once it's understood that $20 million is the limit it will become as accepted as are speed limits and other social regulations. Some will break the law but the vast majority will simply conform -- and the effect on American society will be extremely positive in many ways.

 

[Steelfoot]

We always get a chuckle watching one of the pathetic socioeconomic losers crawl in and out of its own anal aperture, furiously struggling to justify having the scabrous filth of the All-Powerful Central State seize the hard-earned assets of its betters and redistribute them to their netherworld of loathsome parasites.

We repeat: L-O-S-E-R-S.

Those grubby, irrelevant scubs lacking the intelligence and work ethic to compete successfully like to toss around terminology like "our country" and "we the people," when in fact they are nothing more or less than worthless, freeloading sub-maggots who vote for a living instead of working for a living.

They are pestilential leeches, pitiful to behold.

Their whining makes any decent, clean, moral, patriotic, successful American feel like puking.

Know what we mean?

 

[OldLady]

I wouldn't have voted for Bernie, as much as I liked him, because of this. I believe in universal health care and basic social welfare programs as investment in our population's long term health and stability, but Bernie was too focused on taking down the 1%.

Too bad you've missed the importance of Bernie's intention to rid us of the financial ruling class.

I love beautiful things, like the Crown Jewels and the Faberge Eggs, the Sistine Chapel, The Pieta, The Palace of Versailles. None of those things would exist without immense wealth behind their creation.

Not so.

How would a limit on your personal assets interfere with your appreciation of any of those things?

Re-read my post.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You dishonestly evade my point by ignoring inherited wealth, which is entirely different from earned wealth. Address that issue and don't try to limit it to wealth the HeirDad worked for, even if gained through luck or dishonesty.

I don't know what made you think I've evaded or ignored any aspect of accumulated personal wealth or its sources. My proposal to limit accumulation is universal and non-discriminating. All accumulated personal assets, in any form, whether earned or inherited, in excess of twenty million dollars in assessed value would be prohibited and confiscated by the IRS.

What is evasive about that? And what am I ignoring?

We also must not accept the Sperm Bingo winners living off an allowance in college or being financed by trust funds--"living inheritance." In a free country, a lazy, Low IQ, draftdodging drunk like Dumbo Dubya would have wound up living in a trailer park.

If the fatcats' fatkittens had to "work their way through college" on menial part-time jobs just like the fatcats mandate for everybody else, then the plutocracy would use its remaining power to give the few who actually qualify for college an adult allowance and paid-up tuition. If not, many of the former HeirHeads would drop out and be forced to work at blue-collar jobs. Then their Daddies would pass a law making unions mandatory and "Right to Work" laws unconstitutional. This won't be a free country until the son of a billionaire has just as much chance of becoming a blue-collar worker as the son of a blue-collar worker has.

I have difficulty understanding slang and childishly invented or esoteric terms, so I don't intend to waste time trying to interpret what you're trying to say in the above paragraph. .

Whirled Wad of Wub

You know perfectly well what I mean; using some flimsy excuse to pretend that you don't is typical of Netwits' dishonest rhetoric.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We are individualists in this country, and we are capitalists, and your idea is anathema to most of us raised in the U.S. Paying fair share of taxes could be massively improved upon by closing loop holes in the tax codes. Being strict about breaking up businesses too big to fail, cracking down on virtual monopolies. Those things could even the playing field for people, but if a person is smart enough, lucky enough, and puts the effort into it to become a multi-millionaire, no one has the right to take that away from him/her.
I'm no economist, as you can tell. I have heard of these steps to make things a bit more fair. But taking away people's greed motivation has not worked in the great communist experiments in Russia and China. Greed is not our best attribute as humans, but it sure gets people trying. If we can control the marketplace where greed is going too far it is better than taking away individuals' rights and freedoms to be as wealthy as they can manag

Thank you. This stuff worries me seeing that so many are being swept away towards thinking like his. America has lost its way. We seem to be moving in the direction of choosing between Communism and Fascism. Like I said, I'm staying grounded in the country the Founders gave us.

The Rule of Law Is the Rule of Lawyers

The Founders were the pioneers, not the Wags Wearing Wigs back in Philadelphia. They were lawyers for the 1% and established a hereditary oligarchy instead of the democracy that we, the people, demanded. So "We, the People" literally refers only to those few wannabe British aristocrats who actually signed that anti-democratic manifesto.

 

[MikeK]

Re-read my post.

My proposal limits assets accumulation by contemporary American citizens. Everything listed in your message was created in Europe or Russia generations ago.

The only possible relevancy is your appreciation of them. So, again, how would assets limitation here in the U.S. interfere with your appreciation of those historical works of art?

 

[MikeK]

Whirled Wad of Wub

You know perfectly well what I mean; using some flimsy excuse to pretend that you don't is typical of Netwits' dishonest rhetoric.

I'm interested in participating in reasoned discussion of a specific economic issue, not engaging in an exchange of schoolyard slang and hostile sociopolitical raving by one whose purpose is emulating Mickey Spillane's prose style.

 

[MikeK]

We always get a chuckle watching one of the pathetic socioeconomic losers crawl in and out of its own anal aperture, furiously struggling to justify having the scabrous filth of the All-Powerful Central State seize the hard-earned assets of its betters and redistribute them to their netherworld of loathsome parasites.

We repeat: L-O-S-E-R-S.

Those grubby, irrelevant scubs lacking the intelligence and work ethic to compete successfully like to toss around terminology like "our country" and "we the people," when in fact they are nothing more or less than worthless, freeloading sub-maggots who vote for a living instead of working for a living.

They are pestilential leeches, pitiful to behold.

Their whining makes any decent, clean, moral, patriotic, successful American feel like puking.

Know what we mean?

It never fails to amaze me how the super-rich have a virtual army of loyal acolytes who angrily raise the sword to defend vast wealth while none of them have pots to piss in and few of them will ever pay off their credit card balance.

It would be funny if it were not so sad.

 

[Steelfoot]

Pathetic loser lashing out.

Know what we mean?

 

[jasonnfree]

It's NOBODY'S business what another person earn.

It becomes everybody's business when some people have so much wealth, that they can buy and influence politicians in order to get even wealthier.

 

[Dragonlady]

[QUOTE="Steelfoot, post: 17049497, member: 61939
This fine book is a must read for all decent, clean, moral, patriotic Americans.
Know what we mean?

I agree with the discussion and context of the book, but your racist rant was out of order.

"RAAAAAAAYISIST!" That's the go-to hate speech for your kind.

Know what we mean?[/QUOTE]

When you start talking about the crime rate, murder rate and all of the other "blame the victim shit" without mentioning over-policing of blacks, for-profit, the worst public schools in the free world, slave prisons, minimum sentencing, and zero tolerance drug policies, and all of the myriad factors which helped create this sitauation

YOU ARE A RACIST, you arrogant jerk