Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[Big Fitz]

Apparently he's a determined moron, Bri.

 

[drsmith1072]

Apparently he's a determined moron, Bri.

I noticed another huge difference between our posts. While I am focusing on what has actually been said you seem content in focusing on attacking me personally while offering nothing to the debate as you run away from your own comments.

Unlike you I stand by my comments and will defend them when asked. You have no such integrity.

How typical.

 

[bripat9643]

SO you made a CHOICE to work there because they gave you the hours and pay that you wanted. You were not FORCED to take that job and it was not the ONLY job available.

You made a choice and only have yourself to blame, now stop whining about it and accept personal responsibility for your choice.

As I've explained to you already, dipstick, he has a "CHOICE" only in the same sense that someone being mugged has a choice of giving the mugger all his money or taking a bullet. Unions use force to control what "CHOICES" are available to employees and employers.

There's nothing voluntary about the terms of a union contract. Only a union thug would even attempt to dispute the fact.

As i've already explained to you, your baseless rhetoric and hyperbole is beyond belief and you have been called to task on your baseless claims on multiple occasions and your only response is the repeat the same bs over and over again as if repeating it makes it true when it doesn't. Provide something REAL to support your rhetoric or stop wasting my time. Put up or shut up.

So again thanks for nothing

ROFL! The fact that the federal government uses force to impose union contracts on employees and employers isn't a matter of debate. It's federal law.

You have to be a major league imbecile to even dispute the point. Why would I bother wasting time supporting it? I would just as soon try to prove that a triangle has three sides.

Face it: you're a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently he's a determined moron, Bri.

Yes he is. The moron never learns that his stubbornness only confirms his stupidity.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently he's a determined moron, Bri.

I noticed another huge difference between our posts. While I am focusing on what has actually been said you seem content in focusing on attacking me personally while offering nothing to the debate as you run away from your own comments.

Unlike you I stand by my comments and will defend them when asked. You have no such integrity.

How typical.

There's nothing I can "offer" a moron who refuses to admit that a triangle has three side or that unions use force to impose their demands employers and employees.

 

[drsmith1072]

As I've explained to you already, dipstick, he has a "CHOICE" only in the same sense that someone being mugged has a choice of giving the mugger all his money or taking a bullet. Unions use force to control what "CHOICES" are available to employees and employers.

There's nothing voluntary about the terms of a union contract. Only a union thug would even attempt to dispute the fact.

As i've already explained to you, your baseless rhetoric and hyperbole is beyond belief and you have been called to task on your baseless claims on multiple occasions and your only response is the repeat the same bs over and over again as if repeating it makes it true when it doesn't. Provide something REAL to support your rhetoric or stop wasting my time. Put up or shut up.

So again thanks for nothing

ROFL! The fact that the federal government uses force to impose union contracts on employees and employers isn't a matter of debate. It's federal law.

You have to be a major league imbecile to even dispute the point. Why would I bother wasting time supporting it? I would just as soon try to prove that a triangle has three sides.

Face it: you're a moron.

Let's get this straight, throughout this thread you have been trying to equate unions to criminals who "break peoples legs" and get what they want via "gun point" and now you counter that entire line of BS by admitting that the federal government does it's job by enforcing existing federal law and yet your contradiction somehow reflects negatively on me?? Really?? LOL

How is the federal governments enforcement of existing federal law remotely illegal or criminal activitiy by the unions as you are implying??

 

[drsmith1072]

Apparently he's a determined moron, Bri.

I noticed another huge difference between our posts. While I am focusing on what has actually been said you seem content in focusing on attacking me personally while offering nothing to the debate as you run away from your own comments.

Unlike you I stand by my comments and will defend them when asked. You have no such integrity.

How typical.

There's nothing I can "offer" a moron who refuses to admit that a triangle has three side or that unions use force to impose their demands employers and employees.

First off, why are you responding to my posts to fitz as if I am talking to you?

Second, You countered your own arguments on unions when you admitted that the force involved is the government enforcing federal law which is not illegal or criminal so you can drop that line of bs anytime now.

Furthermore, I still find it funny that you tried to call me out for not responding to one of your posts, when I did once I noticed it, and yet you still haven't gone back and replied to my responses to all of your posts.

According to you in a previous post that means that you must be too afraid to respond.

So go on and start responding. What are you afraid of?

 

[editec]

Apparently he's a determined moron, Bri.

I noticed another huge difference between our posts. While I am focusing on what has actually been said you seem content in focusing on attacking me personally while offering nothing to the debate as you run away from your own comments.

Unlike you I stand by my comments and will defend them when asked. You have no such integrity.

How typical.

Lots of that going on, here and everywhere else where people meet ti discuss issues of the day.

ATtacking the messenger is the SOP of trolls.

 

[editec]

I noticed another huge difference between our posts. While I am focusing on what has actually been said you seem content in focusing on attacking me personally while offering nothing to the debate as you run away from your own comments.

Unlike you I stand by my comments and will defend them when asked. You have no such integrity.

How typical.

There's nothing I can "offer" a moron who refuses to admit that a triangle has three side or that unions use force to impose their demands employers and employees.

First off, why are you responding to my posts to fitz as if I am talking to you?

Second, You countered your own arguments on unions when you admitted that the force involved is the government enforcing federal law which is not illegal or criminal so you can drop that line of bs anytime now.

Furthermore, I still find it funny that you tried to call me out for not responding to one of your posts, when I did once I noticed it, and yet you still haven't gone back and replied to my responses to all of your posts.

According to you in a previous post that means that you must be too afraid to respond.

So go on and start responding. What are you afraid of?

LAW is the velvet glove covering the iron hand of the law

Violence is the implied threat backing EVERY LAW.

That's why insuring that laws are fair and just is so damned important/

duh!,. right?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

First, I just want to say that I come from the same union understanding and view as you. Having experienced first hand how they operate, they also favor their members to contribute dues even while it may be months before they could ever hope to see a dime of earned union employment. It's far from a system that actually looks to its own, as they like to portray to others it is. When you break it down and look to its basic foundation, like every other executive corporation it all boils down to money. How much of it they can extract from those they are "supposed" to represent, yet the improvements in the workforce that became the reason behind forming a union appears to be dwindling and misguided.

I disagree, my experience with unions has always been favorable as has my family's experiences. When my parents needed the unions to help them deal with any issue they had they got the help they needed. Both of my parents were union members for over 30 years and never had any issues like the ones you describe.

Actually I already made the decision to leave the trade union to look for employment elsewhere, as well as several other ex-union employees, due to the fact the union organization was more concerned about collecting dues than getting those who have been out of work for over 6 months employed. Some have gone on to find more success in a starting business of their own. What you discribe may have happened in one period of time, however todays union is not the union of your parents.

With regard to government entitlements (social security, government health care programs, etc) the Federal Government is the most financial disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged organization of any you'll ever hope to find. In short there is no accountability, which is the biggest problem with having the government run it. These programs will find more success being run in the private sector without BIG Government medling and tinkering of the system. The more Government gets involved the worse it becomes. If Social Security were to be privatized, people would find more of a financial return over something they have greater control and influence over. The left want's to demonize stock holders for being greedy, yet at the same time, many would also desire to see a greater financial return for their own personal retirement accounts which (for those who have IRAs, 401Ks, etc.) are based upon how these same stocks perform. This is similar to complaining how this nation has an obesity problem that has a direct overall effect on everyone's Health Care costs, yet they frequent locations like McDonalds, Pizza Hut, soda, or enjoy beer. If you disapprove of something, wouldn't it also make sense that you change their effects and influence in your own lifestyle before you begin to criticize others?

There in lies the problem with the republican party. They spend their lives trying to become part of a system they say is "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged" and then if they actually get in they spend their careers in a self fulfilling prophecy to make government "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged"

One example is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which requires the postal service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package or to cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%. The right loves to use the post office as one of it's prime examples of government inefficiecy but the actions of the right are what put it in it's current predicament.

There lies the problem in a government organization where it has become more "convenient" to throw money at a problem rather than to hold them accountable. If the postal service desired these benefits, then they should have the means already in place to cover it's cost ahead of time. It's called planning. What if this were a private company, how were you expecting these kind of costs to be covered? You think it's okay, simply because it's a Federal Government orgainzation and they can simply hide behind the U.S. Treasury and the american taxpayer? Unions have pensions that are supported by currently "working" members. The money has to come from somewhere, the problem with liberal Democrats are they want all these dream entitlements, yet share no concern to which they are to be paid. The Postal Service was asked to cover the cost for what they are asking in benefits. Accountability and responsibility is a choice in the right direction, over a growing sink hole that left looks for "government" to simply turn the other way and constantly fill rather than solve. Just because it's government, doesn't mean they should have an endless resource of taxpayer dollars to cover for financial incompetence.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wanting what is "fair" does not equate to envy. Even the right admits that the tax code is messed up and yet when the left talks about how it's messed up the right cries "class warfare" and now they follow it with the latest talking point and try to flip it back on those questioning the tax system claiming that they must be "envious".

Do you not see how ridiculously absurd that argument is?? I tried to point that out last night by bringing up the republican position on "broadening the tax base" and making the bottom 47% who pay no income taxes pay their "fair share" but those who responded would rather make it about me personally than discuss the contradiction in their own positions.
If talking about the tax code and wanting to change it to make it more "fair" is envy then right wingers must be envious of the 47% who don't pay income taxes based on their low income.

The tax code SHOULD be changed based on the same flat percentage that everyone pays, no excuses. For those who believe this is somehow unfair, a small Federal Government flat percentage tax would also be applied to the items you buy. This wouldn't matter it you had bought a $36,000 vehicle or a million dollar yacht, you'd each pay the same flat government tax. Then you can do away with the old complicated tax forms of deductions, entitlements, and loop holes. This is an example of how you'd create a less complicated "fair" government tax system. However, receiving from the government THAT which you did not earn, and is "given up" (stolen, whatever term you desire to use here) from the rich is the only system that seems to appeal to the left. One that takes away any incentive to earn for yourself, which in its wake creates a more apathy, uninspired, and slothful society.

I have been told that talking about what is "fair" considered class warfare so are you engaging in class warfare??
The sad fact is that the usual argument from the right is that the "wealthy" already pay "MORE" but they would pay "MORE" even at a flat tax. So that really doesn't fix that problem or fit one of the main arguments from the right.

Although it's funny how you didn't really address anything that I said but that is to be expected.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

 

[Big Fitz]

The tax code SHOULD be changed based on the same flat percentage that everyone pays, no excuses. For those who believe this is somehow unfair, a small Federal Government flat percentage tax would also be applied to the items you buy. This wouldn't matter it you had bought a $36,000 vehicle or a million dollar yacht, you'd each pay the same flat government tax. Then you can do away with the old complicated tax forms of deductions, entitlements, and loop holes. This is an example of how you'd create a less complicated "fair" government tax system. However, receiving from the government THAT which you did not earn, and is "given up" (stolen, whatever term you desire to use here) from the rich is the only system that seems to appeal to the left. One that takes away any incentive to earn for yourself, which in its wake creates a more apathy, uninspired, and slothful society.

I have been told that talking about what is "fair" considered class warfare so are you engaging in class warfare??
The sad fact is that the usual argument from the right is that the "wealthy" already pay "MORE" but they would pay "MORE" even at a flat tax. So that really doesn't fix that problem or fit one of the main arguments from the right.

Although it's funny how you didn't really address anything that I said but that is to be expected.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

Said better than I did, but I doubt they'll get it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

.....And, BU$HCO......he forgot to mention BU$HCO.​

January 16, 2012​

"A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service shows that, between 1996 and 2006, the share of total after-tax income attributable to dividends and capital gains grew by 40 percent, faster than any other category. Earned mostly by the well-to-do, investment income was the largest contributor to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006, according to CRS.

The tax cuts enacted at the urging of President George W. Bush magnified what CRS calls the “disequalizing” impact of this shift. The 1986 tax reform eliminated the gap between the ordinary and capital gains rates. The gap began to widen again during President Bill Clinton’s second term, but the Bush tax cuts of 2003 blew it wide open by slicing the top rate on dividends and long-term capital gains from 28 percent to 15 percent."

Class Warfare;
By BU$HCO​

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You could have "chosen" to work somewhere else. However, you "chose" to work there and were required to work under the rules that applied to that job before you "chose" to take it. Seems to me that you had a porblem with the "choice" that you made.

How's that any different from those who make the "choice" to start a business and take the necessary risks through personal investment, than work for someone else at $15 an hour? Seems the individuals "choose" the lifestyle they want to attain for themselves. Why ask the government to do something that you have the free "choice" to make for yourself? You don't like how the company you work for does business, quit and make the "choice" to start one the way you feel it ought to be run. Sounds like some would rather blame the rich because they are not happy with the choices they made for themselves.

Are you talking to me? It seems to me that you are talking to skull but you responded to my post. It would help if what you posted actually pertained to content of the post that you are responding to. Thank you.

That was in response to the perception of the word "choice". The discussion was surrounding your response with his choices for seeking employment. You want to simply place blame on someone making the choice to go union, and the rules that apply there, while they are addressing their need for a place to obtain work. I was denoting your use of the word "choice" in discussion to be rather speculative, as it can also pertain to those who simply believes that a company ought to just pay them more (which I have found is usually the general conception of those who strongly believe in unions). Like the left, they often share in the concept that the rich owner can afford it, and they are just entitled to more of what the owner or the rich have. It would appear that those who believe in such ideals, also have the "choice" to start their own business rather than bicker and whine when they feel they are not making enough. Again, it's easy to blame the rich when they aren't happy with their OWN lifestyle choices they have made (as is often the case).

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

More moronic hyperbole from you. Is that all that you have to offer?? You be sure to let me know when you want to discuss this like an adult, then we can talk. until then keep your childish inane and baseless rantings to yourself. gun point?? LOL

What he fails to mention is that unions don't really favor having a little "choice and competition", so they do what is called Salting. This is where a union employee fakes a resume and infiltrates the nonunion company. This is done, so they can "keep tabs" on their rival businesses, while trying to convince enough workers of the benefits a union can bring without giving them the entire picture of how a union is run. If enough of them are convinced, after secretly recieving only one side of the argument and without the owner's chance to divulge other informative facts, they can force the company to assimulate into the union no matter if the owner desires to or not. Unions never favors competition. Which is also why they put SO MUCH funding (through union dues) into lobbying government into promoting policies that are anti-business, and favor more union power influence over private business owners. Owners who believe in allowing the FREE MARKET to dictate and bring competitive pricing, along with the "choice" of quality satisfaction, to fight for the consumer's business.

Do you ever actually respond to the content of the posts that you reply to or do you just post fiction like the above to spread misinformation in the hopes someone stupid enough will buy it and repeat it?

It's not fiction to someone who was once a union member themself. You can run that B.S. to someone else but I have actually worked in a union once before for a few years, know what it was like, and about some of the tactics they use. Should we only address the dream misconception of what a union ought to be (like yourself) without devoting to some of the ugly facts to what it has become? Unions have it's good and dark sides. I elected to drop my membership as I found there to be too much focus surrounding more union power through politics ,and not enough towards providing for the needs of its members.

 

[Big Fitz]

What he fails to mention is that unions don't really favor having a little "choice and competition", so they do what is called Salting. This is where a union employee fakes a resume and infiltrates the nonunion company. This is done, so they can "keep tabs" on their rival businesses, while trying to convince enough workers of the benefits a union can bring without giving them the entire picture of how a union is run. If enough of them are convinced, after secretly recieving only one side of the argument and without the owner's chance to divulge other informative facts, they can force the company to assimulate into the union no matter if the owner desires to or not. Unions never favors competition. Which is also why they put SO MUCH funding (through union dues) into lobbying government into promoting policies that are anti-business, and favor more union power influence over private business owners. Owners who believe in allowing the FREE MARKET to dictate and bring competitive pricing, along with the "choice" of quality satisfaction, to fight for the consumer's business.

Do you ever actually respond to the content of the posts that you reply to or do you just post fiction like the above to spread misinformation in the hopes someone stupid enough will buy it and repeat it?

It's not fiction to someone who was once a union member themself. You can run that B.S. to someone else but I have actually worked in a union once before for a few years, know what it was like, and about some of the tactics they use. Should we only address the dream misconception of what a union ought to be (like yourself) without devoting to some of the ugly facts to what it has become? Unions have it's good and dark sides. I elected to drop my membership as I found there to be too much focus surrounding more union power through politics ,and not enough towards providing for the needs of its members.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ShaklesOfBigGov again

And how. Many things I saw and experienced right there when I was in a public sector union.

 

[drsmith1072]

First, I just want to say that I come from the same union understanding and view as you. Having experienced first hand how they operate, they also favor their members to contribute dues even while it may be months before they could ever hope to see a dime of earned union employment. It's far from a system that actually looks to its own, as they like to portray to others it is. When you break it down and look to its basic foundation, like every other executive corporation it all boils down to money. How much of it they can extract from those they are "supposed" to represent, yet the improvements in the workforce that became the reason behind forming a union appears to be dwindling and misguided.

I disagree, my experience with unions has always been favorable as has my family's experiences. When my parents needed the unions to help them deal with any issue they had they got the help they needed. Both of my parents were union members for over 30 years and never had any issues like the ones you describe.

Actually I already made the decision to leave the trade union to look for employment elsewhere, as well as several other ex-union employees, due to the fact the union organization was more concerned about collecting dues than getting those who have been out of work for over 6 months employed. Some have gone on to find more success in a starting business of their own. What you discribe may have happened in one period of time, however todays union is not the union of your parents.

Uh my parents dealt with the unions as recent as last year so please keep your presumptions to yourself. You gave your "experience", I gave mine and we disagree. How about we leave it at that and I will express my own opinions without your "help." Thank you.

With regard to government entitlements (social security, government health care programs, etc) the Federal Government is the most financial disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged organization of any you'll ever hope to find. In short there is no accountability, which is the biggest problem with having the government run it. These programs will find more success being run in the private sector without BIG Government medling and tinkering of the system. The more Government gets involved the worse it becomes. If Social Security were to be privatized, people would find more of a financial return over something they have greater control and influence over. The left want's to demonize stock holders for being greedy, yet at the same time, many would also desire to see a greater financial return for their own personal retirement accounts which (for those who have IRAs, 401Ks, etc.) are based upon how these same stocks perform. This is similar to complaining how this nation has an obesity problem that has a direct overall effect on everyone's Health Care costs, yet they frequent locations like McDonalds, Pizza Hut, soda, or enjoy beer. If you disapprove of something, wouldn't it also make sense that you change their effects and influence in your own lifestyle before you begin to criticize others?

There in lies the problem with the republican party. They spend their lives trying to become part of a system they say is "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged" and then if they actually get in they spend their careers in a self fulfilling prophecy to make government "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged"

One example is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which requires the postal service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package or to cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%. The right loves to use the post office as one of it's prime examples of government inefficiecy but the actions of the right are what put it in it's current predicament.

There lies the problem in a government organization where it has become more "convenient" to throw money at a problem rather than to hold them accountable. If the postal service desired these benefits, then they should have the means already in place to cover it's cost ahead of time. It's called planning. What if this were a private company, how were you expecting these kind of costs to be covered? You think it's okay, simply because it's a Federal Government orgainzation and they can simply hide behind the U.S. Treasury and the american taxpayer? Unions have pensions that are supported by currently "working" members. The money has to come from somewhere, the problem with liberal Democrats are they want all these dream entitlements, yet share no concern to which they are to be paid. The Postal Service was asked to cover the cost for what they are asking in benefits. Accountability and responsibility is a choice in the right direction, over a growing sink hole that left looks for "government" to simply turn the other way and constantly fill rather than solve. Just because it's government, doesn't mean they should have an endless resource of taxpayer dollars to cover for financial incompetence.

WOW! So the post office should be handled differently than other government entitites and private companies?? Really?? THe point is that no other agency has this requirement of FRE-FUNDING 100% of FUTURE retirees healthcare (which is an UNKNOWN) and that this requirement, which was passed by republicans, is what put the post office in it's current predicament.

Take some time, do some research and find out what is going on before you jump in with your baseless assumptions and blanket statements about government as you pretend that the fiction that you are presenting is real.

Oh and please keep your opinions about what you think I believe to yourself and stop trying to put words into my mouth. Thank you.

P.S. you were still wrong to claim that the airlines didn't get bailed out after 9/11. lol

 

[drsmith1072]

The tax code SHOULD be changed based on the same flat percentage that everyone pays, no excuses. For those who believe this is somehow unfair, a small Federal Government flat percentage tax would also be applied to the items you buy. This wouldn't matter it you had bought a $36,000 vehicle or a million dollar yacht, you'd each pay the same flat government tax. Then you can do away with the old complicated tax forms of deductions, entitlements, and loop holes. This is an example of how you'd create a less complicated "fair" government tax system. However, receiving from the government THAT which you did not earn, and is "given up" (stolen, whatever term you desire to use here) from the rich is the only system that seems to appeal to the left. One that takes away any incentive to earn for yourself, which in its wake creates a more apathy, uninspired, and slothful society.

I have been told that talking about what is "fair" considered class warfare so are you engaging in class warfare??
The sad fact is that the usual argument from the right is that the "wealthy" already pay "MORE" but they would pay "MORE" even at a flat tax. So that really doesn't fix that problem or fit one of the main arguments from the right.

Although it's funny how you didn't really address anything that I said but that is to be expected.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

So it's exactly like when republicans in wisconsin and other states tried to pit private sector workers against public sector workers because the public sector workers had such good pay and benefits and they had to be taken away?? Got it.
So who decides how to define an "equal share?" If I say it's that the wealthy should pay more in taxes then I am accused of class warfare and yet that same standard does not apply to those who blame private sector workers for all of the ills of that "state" as they demand that the public sector should pay more?
Your spin is no better than fitz's seeing as how you did the same thing he did and tried to use different language to describe the same position.

So Thanks for clearing that up, LOL. Now this is what fitz said about that.

The public sector should NEVER be superior in pay and benefit to the private sector employment. Ever. Lest it forget that they are public SERVANTS and the servant never makes more than it's master, the taxpayers... which in this case is only the upper 53% of wage earners in this nation.

Then there was his argument where he decides who "deserves" what they have and who doesn't.

I engage in 'merit warfare'. What have YOU done to deserve the life you want, versus the life you have?

I asked him if he could clarify his statements but he turned tail and ran from the debate and now can only troll in to attack me personally.

 

[drsmith1072]

I have been told that talking about what is "fair" considered class warfare so are you engaging in class warfare??
The sad fact is that the usual argument from the right is that the "wealthy" already pay "MORE" but they would pay "MORE" even at a flat tax. So that really doesn't fix that problem or fit one of the main arguments from the right.

Although it's funny how you didn't really address anything that I said but that is to be expected.

Actually the proper definition of "class warfare" is to throw one group of people against another, by placing blame on one class while showing favoritism towards another. There is no "class warfare" in a system that places equal share in responsibility upon each class of people to pay off a common debt. How exactly is an equal division of the burden of debt "class warfare", care to explain that to me? Your answer only demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what the term denotes, perhaps because you are blindsided by the ideology of placing the major burden of debt squarely on only one class of people?

Said better than I did, but I doubt they'll get it.

Exactly, he said the same thing you did using different language and it's just a pointless as it was when you tried to say it.

In winsconsin the republicans pitted the private sector workers against public sector workers and tried to blame all of the states problems on public sector workers. Then based on the argument that their pay and benefits were better than private sector workersas well as the OPINION that public sector workers did not earn or deserve the pay and benefits that they had then they should be taken away from them and make it "fair" or "equal" between public sector and private sector.

Pitting one group against another over economic differences as you blame one for all of the problems is class warfare as defined by the right and as defined by shackles above. You lose and you even agreed with the argument that countered your earlier spin.

How freaking sad is that? LOL

 

[Big Fitz]

Exactly, he said the same thing you did using different language and it's just a pointless as it was when you tried to say it.

Hence my reaction and derision of you.

Have the the goalposts moved enough times and you too will quit caring about what the other person has to say. I'm just taking amusement where I find it.

Too bad I don't have the 3 Treasures though. That'd make life more interesting for me.