I Spit On "da federal gubermint"........

[Centinel]

Idiots like Joe think it's selfish for people to keep what's theirs but it's not selfish for people to take what's not theirs

Yeah, it seems kind of backward. I've always been taught that it's wrong to hurt other people and take their stuff, not that it's wrong to have stuff in the first place.

 

[Centinel]

The rich aren't taking what's "theirs'. They take what someone else made.

Example?

 

[kaz]

Of course it can. It has before right here.

Too bad people today think they should have everything given to them

Uh, guy, the 19th Century was a shit sandwich for most Americans, even most of the white ones. They didn't have to worry about retirement because most of them didn't live long enough TO retire. The One Percenters in the Gilded Age usually worked them from Childhood to death.

Just because you have some delusions that your 800 SF business puts you above the people who work for you, the vast majority of us don't want to go back to that.

Now we do have some problems, of course. Most of them caused by the 1%ers who sent all the good paying jobs to China, so we dont have the revenues coming in, and George W. Stupid looting the lockbox so he get back at Saddam for humiliating his father.

On a larger scale, of course, when the average life expectency goes from 62 as it was in 1935 to 78 today, we do have to be more creative in how we manage the safety net.

But we still need a safety net.

And SS is not the net we need.

Like I said keep the forced contributions but let the people own the accounts

It is their money after all. But the governemnt can't have that because it would actually mean there would be less people dependent on it

It would also mean government couldn't spend it as it comes in

 

[Skull Pilot]

The rich aren't taking what's "theirs'. They take what someone else made.

Example?

The rich pay people to work for them and Joe thinks they are slave masters. But he goes to work every day and punches a clock so....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course it can. It has before right here.

Too bad people today think they should have everything given to them

Uh, guy, the 19th Century was a shit sandwich for most Americans, even most of the white ones. They didn't have to worry about retirement because most of them didn't live long enough TO retire. The One Percenters in the Gilded Age usually worked them from Childhood to death.

Just because you have some delusions that your 800 SF business puts you above the people who work for you, the vast majority of us don't want to go back to that.

Now we do have some problems, of course. Most of them caused by the 1%ers who sent all the good paying jobs to China, so we dont have the revenues coming in, and George W. Stupid looting the lockbox so he get back at Saddam for humiliating his father.

On a larger scale, of course, when the average life expectency goes from 62 as it was in 1935 to 78 today, we do have to be more creative in how we manage the safety net.

But we still need a safety net.

And SS is not the net we need.

Like I said keep the forced contributions but let the people own the accounts

It is their money after all. But the governemnt can't have that because it would actually mean there would be less people dependent on it

It would also mean government couldn't spend it as it comes in

Yeah their off the books slush fund would be gone and they can't have that

 

[kaz]

Idiots like Joe think it's selfish for people to keep what's theirs but it's not selfish for people to take what's not theirs

Yeah, it seems kind of backward. I've always been taught that it's wrong to hurt other people and take their stuff, not that it's wrong to have stuff in the first place.

Taxes for the purpose of redistribution of wealth are pure armed robbery. Liberals are so stupid they come back and say roads are redistribution of wealth. WTF? No, redistribution of wealth is using guns to take money from one citizen and give it to another. The only difference when government does it and when a thug on the street does it is the former is more sanitary

 

[Centinel]

The rich pay people to work for them and Joe thinks they are slave masters. But he goes to work every day and punches a clock so....

Well JoeB131 seems to have disappeared, so I guess I'll never know what the rich take that belongs to others.

 

[JoeB131]

And SS is not the net we need.

Like I said keep the forced contributions but let the people own the accounts

It is their money after all. But the governemnt can't have that because it would actually mean there would be less people dependent on it

MOre along the lines of, if they "own" it and fuck up, the government will still be on the hook for taking care of them.

Why do you think AARP is the most powerful union in the country? Why do you think they crushed Baby Bush when he proposed the same awful idea you just proposed?

 

[JoeB131]

They don't take it. They pay people for it.

Tell me what would all those laborers do if no one gave them a place to work, a job to do and a paycheck for doing that job?

You see, again, you are mistaking the parasite for a vital organ. The economy would do just fine without the 1%ers. it isn't rich people who create jobs, it's consumer demand that creates jobs.

To use an example, supposed a rich guy got the crazy idea to start selling Shit Sandwiches. I mean, he could create jobs for a little while, but at the end of the day, no one wants to eat a Shit Sandwich. So the jobs would disappear as soon as the money ran out.

Bill Gates didn't start out rich. He started in his garage creating products people needed.

 

[JoeB131]

Well JoeB131 seems to have disappeared, so I guess I'll never know what the rich take that belongs to others.

Um, yeah, guy, unlike you I have a job. Actually, I have a job and a side business.

 

[JoeB131]

The rich pay people to work for them and Joe thinks they are slave masters. But he goes to work every day and punches a clock so....

Well, first, my current company is employee owned, so not so much. So I'm essentially owrking for myself.
But I'll say it again, because you completely avoid the point.

Do you really think that the 1% who control 43% of the wealth are doing 43% of the physical and intelectual labor that creates that wealth?

If you were honest, you'd admit they do not.

 

[Centinel]

The rich aren't taking what's "theirs'. They take what someone else made.

So what do the rich take that is owned by others?

 

[numan]

Tell me what would all those laborers do if no one gave them a place to work, a job to do and a paycheck for doing that job?

Uh .... Take over and control the government? .... By whatever means?
.

 

[JoeB131]

The rich aren't taking what's "theirs'. They take what someone else made.

So what do the rich take that is owned by others?

You are using the wrong definition. What is "ownership?"

Again, all money or capital is the result of labor. Therefore, if those who labor do not enjoy the full value of what they made, because a small slice of the population controls the distribution of capital for its own benefit, that is theft.

Government redistribution is merely correcting that theft.

 

[Centinel]

You are using the wrong definition. What is "ownership?"

You don't know what the term "ownership" means?

So when you said the following, you had no idea what the words that you were using meant?

Well, first, my current company is employee owned, so not so much.

What did you mean by "owned"?

Again, all money or capital is the result of labor. Therefore, if those who labor do not enjoy the full value of what they made, because a small slice of the population controls the distribution of capital for its own benefit, that is theft.

No. Theft is the taking of someone's property without consent.

So if you're accusing the rich of taking anyone's property, then feel free to march on down to the police department and file charges. Good luck with that.

Government redistribution is merely correcting that theft.

What theft? Innocent until proven guilty. You need to charge and convict someone of theft before they are legally guilty of theft.

And government redistribution is taking people's property by force and giving it to others. I'm not going to jump on that bandwagon. I don't want to in any way support forcibly taking my neighbors' property.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They don't take it. They pay people for it.

Tell me what would all those laborers do if no one gave them a place to work, a job to do and a paycheck for doing that job?

You see, again, you are mistaking the parasite for a vital organ. The economy would do just fine without the 1%ers. it isn't rich people who create jobs, it's consumer demand that creates jobs.

To use an example, supposed a rich guy got the crazy idea to start selling Shit Sandwiches. I mean, he could create jobs for a little while, but at the end of the day, no one wants to eat a Shit Sandwich. So the jobs would disappear as soon as the money ran out.

Bill Gates didn't start out rich. He started in his garage creating products people needed.

Bill Gates was not by any means from a poor family in fact his mother's family was quite affluent. He went to exclusive prep schools and had his parents stake him when he started out

You would have called his family a bunch of douche bags

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well JoeB131 seems to have disappeared, so I guess I'll never know what the rich take that belongs to others.

Um, yeah, guy, unlike you I have a job. Actually, I have a job and a side business.

Yeah we all know you're the office Napoleon and you cut and paste from momma's basement on the weekends

 

[Skull Pilot]

The rich pay people to work for them and Joe thinks they are slave masters. But he goes to work every day and punches a clock so....

Well, first, my current company is employee owned, so not so much. So I'm essentially owrking for myself.
But I'll say it again, because you completely avoid the point.

Do you really think that the 1% who control 43% of the wealth are doing 43% of the physical and intelectual labor that creates that wealth?

If you were honest, you'd admit they do not.

How much of it do you own? And where are your stock certificates?

And define wealth. FYI your wealth is your net worth and you can increase that anytime you want to

 

[Skull Pilot]

The rich aren't taking what's "theirs'. They take what someone else made.

So what do the rich take that is owned by others?

You are using the wrong definition. What is "ownership?"

Again, all money or capital is the result of labor. Therefore, if those who labor do not enjoy the full value of what they made, because a small slice of the population controls the distribution of capital for its own benefit, that is theft.

Government redistribution is merely correcting that theft.

Those who sell their labor do not own the products of that labor.

Labor is nothing but a commodity that is basically the time people sell to an employer for an agreed upon price. That is all it is

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know what the term "ownership" means?

So when you said the following, you had no idea what the words that you were using meant?

Uh, guy, clearly, you are trying to define the argument as "ownership" and not "Wealth distribution"... that was the point I was trying to make, but since you are clinically retarded, it went right over your head.

What theft? Innocent until proven guilty. You need to charge and convict someone of theft before they are legally guilty of theft.

When the Poor Steal, it's called Crime.
When the Rich Steal, it's called "Profits".
When the government steals from the Rich and gives to the poor, it's called "Policy".

Happy to have cleared that up for you.