One billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

[SniperFire]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

Eat shit. When did you stop beating your wife?

Answer the question.

 

[TNHarley]

A million is nothing these days. Nothing.


think about it.... if a house will cost you a million... or a car almost a 1/10 of that.... a millionaire is not what it used to be.

The dollar has lost 96% of its value since the inception of the Federal Reserve - which makes $1,000,000 worth $40,000 in inflation adjusted terms.

yeah, but calling people millionaires is just so..... impressive!

Now now. I will be a millionaire one day (hopefully no time soon) and I will feel impressed with myself lol.. Even though its not made money, me thinks its the title in itself

 

[OKTexas]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

How about you practice what you preach. Let's see YOUR answer.

 

[tinydancer]

It doesn't matter if we have 1 billionaire or ten billionaires or a million of them. The key is what they do with it. I'm not saying that we need to force them to do something with it; that's stupid.

As much as I hate on rich people, there are ones who aren't corrupt and unrepentant. They're few and far between, but they're there, smartly investing and thinking of ways to create jobs.

Increasing taxes means zero when you got the corrupt ones not paying any taxes anyway. Redistribution means nothing when the ones who's been evading taxes for years can weasel their way out of it.

and just so you dont forget... about 1/2 of the population dont pay any federal income tax...... because they are "poor"....so who is corrupt now?

Don't you love all the liberals/progressives on the board going "give me your money".

It's wild. They are pigs and losers and we should start to address them that way.

Up here we have what is called the GST. It's a fair tax. Right across the board. The rich pay and the middle class pay and everyone but the lowest level of poor pay.

It's a straight tax. It used to be 7%, but Flaherty did lower it to 5%. It goes on anything you buy.

Rich man buys a yacht. Pays GST.

Middle income earner buys a new microwave. Pays GST.

Nice and fair.

But what you have happening in the States now is the " rich pays for me to not pay anything". Well hell's bells, that's not paying their fair share is it now.?

So anyone touting that line you should tell them to go fuck themselves, pardon my french, but tell them they are a leech on society.

 

[DiamondDave]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

So you want to stop freedom (which you and the OP dub 'redistribution of wealth') with a government imposed redistribution of wealth

Yeah.. you're a few fries short of a happy meal

 

[SniperFire]

One billionaire.

She has much more flexibility to put investment capital to work without borrowing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Buffett has all his wealth in a tax free trusts, is in tax court over taxes he owes and structures deals as stock swaps so the Seller can avoid paying taxes.

 

[boedicca]

Buffett has all his wealth in a tax free trusts, is in tax court over taxes he owes and structures deals as stock swaps so the Seller can avoid paying taxes.

"Taxes are for the Little People" - doncha know?

 

[tinydancer]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

Your government driven by the WH won't stop spending. You are in deep shit. Your left wing quizzillionaires are running your left wing agenda.

Dont you understand you are at the mercy of your left wing billionaires?

 

[Glensather]

It doesn't matter if we have 1 billionaire or ten billionaires or a million of them. The key is what they do with it. I'm not saying that we need to force them to do something with it; that's stupid.

As much as I hate on rich people, there are ones who aren't corrupt and unrepentant. They're few and far between, but they're there, smartly investing and thinking of ways to create jobs.

Increasing taxes means zero when you got the corrupt ones not paying any taxes anyway. Redistribution means nothing when the ones who's been evading taxes for years can weasel their way out of it.

and just so you dont forget... about 1/2 of the population dont pay any federal income tax...... because they are "poor"....so who is corrupt now?

I'll concede that. I know a lot of people on the dole who somehow live better lives than me. The only time I was ever on it was after tornadoes passed through here last year and tore up my town, forcing a lot of us temporarily out of work. I got off of it as soon as my place of work opened back up and haven't looked back since.

It's an awful thing. Things like that were designed to help people in times of need, not something to turn to in order to supplement their income, and certainly not to abuse it.

I'd be the first to say entitlements need to be cut, and things like that need to be investigated thoroughly before you just hand people money.

But that would fall on deaf ears.

 

[tinydancer]

Why doesn't half the population pay tax. I'm truly curious.

Why do 50% of Americans feel entitled to others money?

 

[TNHarley]

Why doesn't half the population pay tax. I'm truly curious.

Why do 50% of Americans feel entitled to others money?

As am I

 

[Borillar]

1,000 Millionaires would be better, obviously. Just depends on how they drive themselves to become that way.

A million is nothing these days. Nothing.


think about it.... if a house will cost you a million... or a car almost a 1/10 of that.... a millionaire is not what it used to be.

With a million bucks, I could pay off my mortgage, settle all my debts, send my kid through college, and retire comfortably. If a million bucks is "nothing", send some my way.

If a million bucks is nothing, why is everyone on the right so upset about union workers, teachers, etc, getting paltry salaries not even 1/10th of that? And they are excited about the possibility of working for as little as employers can feasibly get away with in so called "Right to work" states.

 

[SniperFire]

Why doesn't half the population pay tax. I'm truly curious.

Why do 50% of Americans feel entitled to others money?

Beats workin.



Besides, Barry said.

 

[earthling01]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

So you want to stop freedom (which you and the OP dub 'redistribution of wealth') with a government imposed redistribution of wealth

Yeah.. you're a few fries short of a happy meal

I see you still have plenty of insults, but still have not answered the OP's question.
Nevertheless, I will address your point about freedom instead.

You assume that the govt-imposed limits on your wealth (e.g. taxes) is a limit on your personal "freedom", correct? Freedom cannot be compromised or limited from your perspective. To a certain extent, I agree with you.

Now try to envision a world where one's wealth (and freedom) can not be limited by the govt.

Can you see how much society has lost as a result of not limiting personal wealth? Can you see where it will be ten or twenty years down the road if the trend is allowed to continue, when the wealth amassed by billionaires (I assume you are not one of them) has reached the point of no return?

Can you imagine a huge division between the "haves" and the "have nots", where one percent of the population owns 90% of the wealth and real estate, sitting on trillions of personal wealth with no incentive to invest it, while the rest of us are working 12-16 hour days just to hold on to what we have?

I assume you have seen this scenario is other parts of the world (India, Mexico, Somalia, Bangladesh). And I suggest to you that that is exactly where we are going as a nation...into the domain of the Third-World. And I suggest that the GOP (and their wealthy constituents) are leading the way. I suggest that you may want to reconsider how your position (and arrogant tone) on this issue will affect you and all Americans one day.

I think when that day comes, you may take a different view of the "freedom" you cherish because there will be very little freedom left for you. What value is freedom to those who cannot get health care, education, housing and cannot retire while the wealthy hoard their billions?

And do not expect your wealthy friends to show any appreciation for your support once they are on top and you are far, far below. And that point, we are all f*&ked.

So do not take a narrow view of this issue. You may choose your freedom to amass wealth over the need to limit wealth. But like many things, unfortunately, there are grave social implications for not imposing limits on freedom. I suggest you take note of where we are going as a nation, and what will happen if nothing changes our current direction (as your comments prescribe).

 

[Avorysuds]

Warren Buffet is not telling the truth.

He depends on idiots repeating his lies.

Links to proof or concede that you're full of shit.

You're a liar.

You're a dime-a-dozen hack.

You're nothing without Fox News.

Buffet is like Arnold, like the Rock, like Sylvester Stallone… They all used steroids to get where they are and now talk down about steroid use. Buffet wants to talk about others using the same loop holes and scams he used to amass his fortune.

The question of what is better for the economy, 1 billionaire or 1,000 millionaires just shows how ridiculous of human beings you Progressives really are. Let’s say you get rid of the billionaire, we already know your next question will be “what’s better for the economy, 1,000 millionaires or 100,000 thousandaires.

It’s not about defending the rich, it’s about defending minorities from useless bigots who seek to rile up a majority to rob a minority based on misinformation. You guys are thieves, scam artists. The tactic has been done before on societies and it destroys them.

 

[Avorysuds]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

So you want to stop freedom (which you and the OP dub 'redistribution of wealth') with a government imposed redistribution of wealth

Yeah.. you're a few fries short of a happy meal

I see you still have plenty of insults, but still have not answered the OP's question.
Nevertheless, I will address your point about freedom instead.

You assume that the govt-imposed limits on your wealth (e.g. taxes) is a limit on your personal "freedom", correct? Freedom cannot be compromised or limited from your perspective. To a certain extent, I agree with you.

Now try to envision a world where one's wealth (and freedom) can not be limited by the govt.

Can you see how much society has lost as a result of not limiting personal wealth? Can you see where it will be ten or twenty years down the road if the trend is allowed to continue, when the wealth amassed by billionaires (I assume you are not one of them) has reached the point of no return?

Can you imagine a huge division between the "haves" and the "have nots", where one percent of the population owns 90% of the wealth and real estate, sitting on trillions of personal wealth with no incentive to invest it, while the rest of us are working 12-16 hour days just to hold on to what we have?

I assume you have seen this scenario is other parts of the world (India, Mexico, Somalia, Bangladesh). And I suggest to you that that is exactly where we are going as a nation...into the domain of the Third-World. And I suggest that the GOP (and their wealthy constituents) are leading the way. I suggest that you may want to reconsider how your position (and arrogant tone) on this issue will affect you and all Americans one day.

I think when that day comes, you may take a different view of the "freedom" you cherish because there will be very little freedom left for you. What value is freedom to those who cannot get health care, education, housing and cannot retire while the wealthy hoard their billions?

And do not expect your wealthy friends to show any appreciation for your support once they are on top and you are far, far below. And that point, we are all f*&ked.

So do not take a narrow view of this issue. You may choose your freedom to amass wealth over the need to limit wealth. But like many things, unfortunately, there are grave social implications for not imposing limits on freedom. I suggest you take note of where we are going as a nation, and what will happen if nothing changes our current direction (as your comments prescribe).

It's scary how ass backwards you have things... Mainly because you believe so absolutely in taking what is not yours by force.

 

[Avorysuds]

1,000 Millionaires would be better, obviously. Just depends on how they drive themselves to become that way.

A million is nothing these days. Nothing.


think about it.... if a house will cost you a million... or a car almost a 1/10 of that.... a millionaire is not what it used to be.

With a million bucks, I could pay off my mortgage, settle all my debts, send my kid through college, and retire comfortably. If a million bucks is "nothing", send some my way.

If a million bucks is nothing, why is everyone on the right so upset about union workers, teachers, etc, getting paltry salaries not even 1/10th of that? And they are excited about the possibility of working for as little as employers can feasibly get away with in so called "Right to work" states.

Yikes, you're a talking point....

 

[earthling01]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

Your government driven by the WH won't stop spending. You are in deep shit. Your left wing quizzillionaires are running your left wing agenda.

Dont you understand you are at the mercy of your left wing billionaires?

Tiny,

First, it's almost laughable to hear anyone on the Right criticizing the Democrats for overspending. The GOP almost single-handedly wrecked the economy with blatantly irresponsible spending, unnecessary and costly wars and tax cuts that favored the already wealthy (in spite of warnings from sensible economists beforehand). They had their warnings, but ignored the facts (which is typical of the GOP) and went ahead with their ruthless devastation. Go figure.

Now the GOP has a new plan: to obstruct or filibuster any real substantial measures that would fix the economy they broke. That's just brilliance...! I could go on, but suffice it to say that our economic ills did not magically appear on January 23, 2009.

Second, the "left wing quizzillionaires" you mentioned are actually spending money to support candidates that go against their own self interests. They actually want a govt that will "raise" --not lower taxes on themselves (the billionaires). They support a candidate that will "decrease" -- not increase, their own personal wealth. Consequently, the middle-class working stiffs like you and me can actually "afford" health care and education.

The party YOU support actually wants the opposite to occur. So, what does that tell you about WHOM we are at the mercy of, hmm?

 

[Avorysuds]

Enough about commies and Warren Buffett. We know where many posters stand on those topics already.

Just answer the OP's question honestly:

Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

What can politician's do to stop the redistribution of wealth?

And can you support your answer with FACTS? I think it's a valid question that deserves to be addressed seriously.

Or is this post going to become more pointless back and forth about liberalism=socialism=communism. That is NOT the question posed by the OP.

Your government driven by the WH won't stop spending. You are in deep shit. Your left wing quizzillionaires are running your left wing agenda.

Dont you understand you are at the mercy of your left wing billionaires?

Tiny,

First, it's almost laughable to hear anyone on the Right criticizing the Democrats for overspending. The GOP almost single-handedly wrecked the economy with blatantly irresponsible spending, unnecessary and costly wars and tax cuts that favored the already wealthy (in spite of warnings from sensible economists beforehand). They had their warnings, but ignored the facts (which is typical of the GOP) and went ahead with their ruthless devastation. Go figure.

Now the GOP has a new plan: to obstruct or filibuster any real substantial measures that would fix the economy they broke. That's just brilliance...! I could go on, but suffice it to say that our economic ills did not magically appear on January 23, 2009.

Second, the "left wing quizzillionaires" you mentioned are actually spending money to support candidates that go against their own self interests. They actually want a govt that will "raise" --not lower taxes on themselves (the billionaires). They support a candidate that will "decrease" -- not increase, their own personal wealth. Consequently, the middle-class working stiffs like you and me can actually "afford" health care and education.

The party YOU support actually wants the opposite to occur. So, what does that tell you about WHOM we are at the mercy of, hmm?

Fact: Democrats and Obama gave billions away in bailouts and handouts to "the rich"

Fact: Democrats and Obama have not raised a single tax on the rich.

Fact: The rich are doing better under Obama than ever before.

Fact: Rich people support Dems and Obama because Dems and Obama know how to trick fools like you into thinking they will one day raise taxes on the very people they hand money to.

Fact: You will only see me as a Republican rather than own up that you support the biggest war party in history who also prints money to give to the rich.