Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[drsmith1072]

Personally I don't buy your spin. I don't think you had anything to with a union and even if you did your limited experience for a "few years" once upon a time doesn't add up to shite. Furthermore, if a union was going to engage in illegal activity such as you are describing why would they be so stupid as to try and recruit a union hating noob whom they have no reason to trust?? That is another detail of your "personal experience" that does not make sense.

Furthermore, if you want to share specifics about your so called "personal experience" then go ahead but don't ask me for my personal info when all you have done is make vague generalities based on nothing real and call them "facts."

It's really hard to take someone serious who hasn't never heard the term Salting, then try and make the claim they had belonged to a union. Can you even tell me what COPE is for that matter or how it works, or are you going to dodge that one too? You haven't shown me any "FACTS" of your knowledge of the union, only some "political issues" while somehow making it out like you have some personal union experience. I'd also have you know I once fully supported the union, thought maybe they cared for one of their own. That was until after receiving a long term layoff. Then you find out who your union brothers REALLY are. They were more concerned for union dues and politics than offering assistance and support to those struggling to maintain their financial obligations. You can support the union if you like, but when all is said and done I found all they really care about is their precious membership dues. To still have to maintain your full union membership, dispite a long struggling lack of employment is inexcuseable. That's the cold heartless fact, ask a union construction worker sometime if you have enough guts to seek the truth over reciting some bumper sticker slogan. Defend that if you want, but I wont.

I just love how this so-called "personal experience" is progressing and how you are trying to correct some of the flaws and fill in the holes in your story after they have been pointed out to you but it a little late for corrections.

Your claim of "knowledge" is something anyone could get with a simple google search. Ad in your attemtps to write yourself into the storyline in a desperate attempt to give credence to your arguments and all you have are your baseless opinions with no substance to support them.

Your story appears to be nothing more than the atypical right wing talking point against the unions and there is nothing that you have said or offered that has made it appear to be anything more. In fact your previous arguments against unions tend to show that you are exactly the opposite of what you claimed to be.

However if the what you say is true and the ONE union that you were a member of for such a short time was being ran that way then I feel sorry for you but don't you think it's kind of hard to paint all unions with such a small brush??

P.S. again, your opinions do not equal facts.

 

[drsmith1072]

Again the issue surrounding Wisconsin was a "political" one. Where a Republican governor saw taxpayer money that helped pay for union employees, being used towards campaign dollars to specifically support Democrats (if you bothered to read the article instead of spewing a union pep rally speech). In short he didn't like the idea of taxpayer dollars filtering Democrats millions in campaign contributions. He was looking to dry up the Democrats well, all while saying the ONLY reason it was done was to save the state money.

That being said, I believe unions shouldn't be automatically awarded public sector jobs for the state, it shows a conflict of interest since a vast majority of unions support Democrat candidates. So in THAT since I agree partly with Gov Walker. However, I also don't believe unions should be excluded, but rather compete for the task with private sector compnies, by demonstrating quality of work at an affordable cost. Unions aren't afraid of a little competition are they? If they can boast the need for paying their workers a higher wage, then they should take no issue at demonstrating they are ALSO qualified to do the task better at a cheaper cost. Nancy Pelosi herself supported the idea of "choice and competition", why not prove she is right and allow contractors to compete for quality and productivity?

So in short, the state has every right to consider the cost of these benefits considering the economy. If unions have shown itself before that they outproduce any competitor with greater quality, thus saving on cost, Gov. Walker would have a difficult time promoting the "cost" factor. Wouldn't you say? I mean unions have to prove they can save on overall cost because they can produce better quality work and save time. So saving on cost is not class warfare. Hoever, just because you are talking union against the private sector alone, doesn't make it a class warfare issue. Sorry. However I personally believe unions should be allowed to compete for the work in some way. The concern is, you would still indirectly have taxpayer dollars supporting [through unions] vast amounts of campaign contributions to Democrat candidates. If we allow that, than you have zero excuse or say to stop taxpayer dollars from funding strictly "conservative" issues and Republican candidates. You allow for one, then be ready for Republicans to find a way to do the same. It's a complex issue, but not a good example of class warfare in this case.

So are you going to actually address how your definition of class warfare applies to and fits the situation in wisconsin or are you just going to continue with your usual nonresponsive BS and you present your walker pep rally speech?? Yo made one statement claim it does not apply but failed to provide anything a substance to support that spin. So do you have anything REAL to offer or not?

Since you have shown a tendency for posting nonresponsive BS I guess I should expect that from now on. Oh well in the end your avoidance admits that walker's union busting was political and not about that budget so thanks for agreeing with the left on that point.

Oh and speaking of nonresponses wheren't you also the one that tried to claim that the airlines didn't take a bailout after 9/11 in another thread?

This coming from someone who "claims" to belong to the big union boy? I doubt you have even the slightest a clue. That's why when given union questions you simply avoid responding to them. So much for the big "union" talker what a bunch of crap!! Continue with your spin as I'm sure you can't face up to "facts". At least I have supported my view with links, unlike you who are at a loss of any to respond with that supports your "opinion".

Let's see if you can catch up.

You presented a post whining about how you believe the federal government "is the most financial disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged organization of any you'll ever hope to find." and then I presented an argument about how republican actions have created inefficiencies in government in a self fulfilling prophecy as I gave the 2006 law concerning the post office as an example to support my argument. However, instead of addressing the actual law or the argumnet that I presented you replied with some halfcocked sidestep about "throwing money at a problem" that didn't address what I actually said.

You have been continuing this trend of avoidance throughout your responses as you ran away from my original argument

Then when I called you out for your avoidance and your spin you started demanding specific personal information from me that I am not comfortable giving you even as you offer nothing but vague generalities about your so-called "personal experiences" that you proclaim are fact even though you can't offer anything to substanciate them.

So do you have anything to say that addresses what I actually said or not?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So are you going to actually address how your definition of class warfare applies to and fits the situation in wisconsin or are you just going to continue with your usual nonresponsive BS and you present your walker pep rally speech?? Yo made one statement claim it does not apply but failed to provide anything a substance to support that spin. So do you have anything REAL to offer or not?

Since you have shown a tendency for posting nonresponsive BS I guess I should expect that from now on. Oh well in the end your avoidance admits that walker's union busting was political and not about that budget so thanks for agreeing with the left on that point.

Oh and speaking of nonresponses wheren't you also the one that tried to claim that the airlines didn't take a bailout after 9/11 in another thread?

This coming from someone who "claims" to belong to the big union boy? I doubt you have even the slightest a clue. That's why when given union questions you simply avoid responding to them. So much for the big "union" talker what a bunch of crap!! Continue with your spin as I'm sure you can't face up to "facts". At least I have supported my view with links, unlike you who are at a loss of any to respond with that supports your "opinion".

Let's see if you can catch up.

You presented a post whining about how you believe the federal government "is the most financial disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged organization of any you'll ever hope to find." and then I presented an argument about how republican actions have created inefficiencies in government in a self fulfilling prophecy as I gave the 2006 law concerning the post office as an example to support my argument. However, instead of addressing the actual law or the argumnet that I presented you replied with some halfcocked sidestep about "throwing money at a problem" that didn't address what I actually said.

You have been continuing this trend of avoidance throughout your responses as you ran away from my original argument

Then when I called you out for your avoidance and your spin you started demanding specific personal information from me that I am not comfortable giving you even as you offer nothing but vague generalities about your so-called "personal experiences" that you proclaim are fact even though you can't offer anything to substanciate them.

So do you have anything to say that addresses what I actually said or not?

You are trying to use your "class warfare" argument with regard to UNION postal workers having to pay for their benefits. I have included "links" to prove the expensive benefits that union postal workers have, even when compared to an electrical union's benefits. Even that union electrical contractor doesn't have this same package for workers that are not full-time. If anything electricians are in a greater need for Health Care benefits because of something called "electrocution". The worst a postal worker will see is what, a paper cut? LOL I mean stop with the belly aching already.

I agree in that the cost to pay these workers are too great to maintain, if it wasn't they wouldn't be going into so much debt over it. It's simple "fiscal" responsibility, yet you want to complain simply because someone else doesn't happen to AGREE with your opinion of maintaining costs. You believe that government (which is the "taxpayer" who is really paying this) should just pick up the tab no matter how elaborate and expensive the benefits are, that is your sole belief, point, and ongoing argument. Because I don't happen to agree with your point of view, now you want to throw a little temper tantrum without providing PROOF or ANY sort of "facts" as to why they are entitled to, and should continue to provide, such an expensive benefits package that most contractors simply won't because it's too expensive. That's why no other company has a benefits package like the Postal Worker which covers full-time, part-time and part-time flexible --- as I outlined in the previous post. Not ONE!


As far as class warfare that means 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.

That means everyone has and equal share and has an equal stake at confronting a common debt. In the case of the United States post Office that debt is in the form of labor costs. Allowing the Post Office to take "responsibility" for it's OWN debt instead of the federal Government, is the same challenge every private sector employer or corporation must deal with in maintaining a profitable business. They also struggle to keep control of all their costs, yet the private sector is able to do a good job at keeping their financial costs (labor costs included) and still maintain a profit.



Now you want to tell me that class warfare is the complaint that UNION Post Office can no longer get government funding to cover it's costs, but must now come up with it's own funding to cover it's OWN labor cost budget? Here is a BIG CLUE, no other private contractor employeer comes with an unlimited source of income that's constantly tied to and flowing from the US government to provide ALL of their financial needs! If anything the United States Post Office has an unfair advantage over other private services like UPS and Federal Express. Class warfare? It most certainly isn't. If they want to maintain there benefits, they can come up with the cost!

If the United States Post Office is unable to control their OWN costs then they ARE most definately fiscally irresponsible!

Now quit with your BIG Government, "Oh no! We gotta survive now without the Federal Government like every other private business" crying and move on already !!! If you are unable to get it by now, after explaining it to you time and time and time again, then I don't know what else to do for you. I addressed your issue and I can't break it down any simpler, you just don't like the answer. Rather you sound like a Big Goverment liberal who believes it's the Government's job to take responsibility for someone else's problems, heaven forbit a company or individual "grows up" to accept some PERSONAL responsibility for once!!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Boy oh boy, the long knives are out by those who think income must be equal and fair. Once again we see that politicians want to decide how much anyone, be they individual or corporation should make.

Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits - The Hill's Floor Action

This bill, if by some freak of nature, passes will be the death knell of oil businesses in this nation and the loss of millions and millions of jobs because prices will spiral out of control.

You know, sometimes I wonder if people have had it too good. Particularly those who propose such abject stupidity as good policy.

Again for the cheap seats: Wealth is EARNED not DISTRIBUTED nor RE-DISTRIBUTED.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Boy oh boy, the long knives are out by those who think income must be equal and fair. Once again we see that politicians want to decide how much anyone, be they individual or corporation should make.

Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits - The Hill's Floor Action

This bill, if by some freak of nature, passes will be the death knell of oil businesses in this nation and the loss of millions and millions of jobs because prices will spiral out of control.

You know, sometimes I wonder if people have had it too good. Particularly those who propose such abject stupidity as good policy.

Again for the cheap seats: Wealth is EARNED not DISTRIBUTED nor RE-DISTRIBUTED.

It's amazing how this administration picks and chooses for the sake of "politics". Obama wants to blame Republicans for not stepping up with a plan for job creation, then makes the claim the Keystone pipeline proposal is not the job creation plan this administration is looking for. All the while, pushing for more Federal Unemployment extensions because there are no jobs being created. Now the government is going to choose which company has the right or "privilege" to earn a profit, all the while Solyndra is seeking to pay their executives bonuses from taxpayer dollars. Yet it's the Republicans who are trying to play politics over doing the work of the American people. When this passes, who do you think will get the blame when the average price for regular gasoline begins to reach near $5 a gallon?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/11/bankrupt-solyndra-seeking-to-pay-bonuses/?page=all

 

[editec]

Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

Defending income inequity is just CLASS WAR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well let's be honest... we do envy the wealthy.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to convince 50% of the population to vote against their own interests.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to run the country into the ground, blame the government...then ask the same government for help.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to demand the government provide corporate protections, subsidies and welfare, while simultaneously denouncing "dependency" on Government.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to use their wealth to buy US public policy and law.

We envy the ability of the wealthy to convince 50% of the population to vote against their own interests.

Everyone knows that our own interests can only be met by giving the government increasing amounts of money.

We envy the ability of the wealthy to run the country into the ground, blame the government...then ask the same government for help.

You bet. We need Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to stop the rich from running the country into the ground. The first thing they should do is force banks to write bad mortgages and then make Fannie and Freddie buy a bunch of them. And then, when the bubble bursts, we can have the taxpayers give a bunch of money to Fannie and Freddie.

That'll show those mean rich guys that the government will protect us.

We envy the ability of the wealthy to demand the government provide corporate protections, subsidies and welfare,

The only solution to that is to give the government even more money and power.

 

[drsmith1072]

This coming from someone who "claims" to belong to the big union boy? I doubt you have even the slightest a clue. That's why when given union questions you simply avoid responding to them. So much for the big "union" talker what a bunch of crap!! Continue with your spin as I'm sure you can't face up to "facts". At least I have supported my view with links, unlike you who are at a loss of any to respond with that supports your "opinion".

Let's see if you can catch up.

You presented a post whining about how you believe the federal government "is the most financial disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged organization of any you'll ever hope to find." and then I presented an argument about how republican actions have created inefficiencies in government in a self fulfilling prophecy as I gave the 2006 law concerning the post office as an example to support my argument. However, instead of addressing the actual law or the argumnet that I presented you replied with some halfcocked sidestep about "throwing money at a problem" that didn't address what I actually said.

You have been continuing this trend of avoidance throughout your responses as you ran away from my original argument

Then when I called you out for your avoidance and your spin you started demanding specific personal information from me that I am not comfortable giving you even as you offer nothing but vague generalities about your so-called "personal experiences" that you proclaim are fact even though you can't offer anything to substanciate them.

So do you have anything to say that addresses what I actually said or not?

You are trying to use your "class warfare" argument with regard to UNION postal workers having to pay for their benefits.

NO that is NOT what I am trying to do. I clearly spelled out my argument but once again you seem trying t redefine my arguments to fit your predisposed and as of yet unsubstantiated OPINIONS.

I have included "links" to prove the expensive benefits that union postal workers have, even when compared to an electrical union's benefits. Even that union electrical contractor doesn't have this same package for workers that are not full-time. If anything electricians are in a greater need for Health Care benefits because of something called "electrocution". The worst a postal worker will see is what, a paper cut? LOL I mean stop with the belly aching already.

and in that respect you are engaging in class warfare. Trying to pit two groups against each other based on what one has and the other doesn't.

I agree in that the cost to pay these workers are too great to maintain, if it wasn't they wouldn't be going into so much debt over it. It's simple "fiscal" responsibility, yet you want to complain simply because someone else doesn't happen to AGREE with your opinion of maintaining costs.

again you try desperately and dishonestly redefine my argument to fit your spin. I never said the cost of these workers was too great so who are you agreeing with??

You believe that government (which is the "taxpayer" who is really paying this) should just pick up the tab no matter how elaborate and expensive the benefits are, that is your sole belief, point, and ongoing argument.

When and where did I make such an argument?? Fact is that I didn't and you are once again making shite up as you go along and attributing arguments to me that I NEVER made.

Because I don't happen to agree with your point of view, now you want to throw a little temper tantrum without providing PROOF or ANY sort of "facts" as to why they are entitled to, and should continue to provide, such an expensive benefits package that most contractors simply won't because it's too expensive. That's why no other company has a benefits package like the Postal Worker which covers full-time, part-time and part-time flexible --- as I outlined in the previous post. Not ONE!

And more of your attempts to frame my argument based on arguments I NEVER made. So when are you going to respond to actual content of my posts??

As far as class warfare that means 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.

That means everyone has and equal share and has an equal stake at confronting a common debt. In the case of the United States post Office that debt is in the form of labor costs. Allowing the Post Office to take "responsibility" for it's OWN debt instead of the federal Government, is the same challenge every private sector employer or corporation must deal with in maintaining a profitable business. They also struggle to keep control of all their costs, yet the private sector is able to do a good job at keeping their financial costs (labor costs included) and still maintain a profit.

In winsconsin the right pitted private sector workers against public sector workers as the right tried to blame the states budget woes on the public sector workers. None of your spin counters that fact and that is class warfare.

Furthermore since you went the way of once again trying to argue that there must be an "equal share" to pay off a common debt (which in reality has NOTHING to do with the defition of "class warfare" anywhere but in your own warped little mind, can you state for a FACT and prove that all private and public workers are paying an "equal share" to git rid of this common debt since walker fot his way??

In addition, your continued BS spin about the post office as you continue to ignore the fact that the requirement placed on the post office to "PRE-FUND 100% of their FUTURE retirees" is what created a large portion of their problem and that if they had similar funding requirements as other government agencies and private entitites they would not have that problem to deal with.

Your argument is allegedly based on equality and yet you refuse to see how the post office is being treated less than equally. Which basically shows that your equality argument is nothing but empty rhetoric.

 

[Billy000]

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.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ch...ing-twenties-1

 

[drsmith1072]

Now you want to tell me that class warfare is the complaint that UNION Post Office can no longer get government funding to cover it's costs, but must now come up with it's own funding to cover it's OWN labor cost budget?

When did I ever say anything of the sort?? Got a quote to support that BS? Apparently you are having issues followingf the discussion. First there was the discussion about wisconsin and how the right was engaging in class warfare and then there was the discussion about how the right's actions contribute to the same government inefficiency that they claim exists in government and I listed to post office and the 2006 law as an example the right's contribution to government inefficiency.

You seem to be confusing the two as you try desperately to criticize me for arguments that I never made.

Here is a BIG CLUE, no other private contractor employeer comes with an unlimited source of income that's constantly tied to and flowing from the US government to provide ALL of their financial needs!

Here is a BIG CLUE for you, THAT IS NOT PART OF ANY ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE MADE OR PRESENTED NOR IS IT PERTINENT TO THE ARGUMENT THAT I PRESENTED.
This had NOTHING to do with government funding of the post office it has to do with republicans use of government to place a requirement on the post office that no other government agency has to meet all so they can use the post office as a example of government inefficiency just as romney did in the debate last night.

If anything the United States Post Office has an unfair advantage over other private services like UPS and Federal Express.

thanks for the whiny unsubstantiated opinion.

Class warfare? It most certainly isn't. If they want to maintain there benefits, they can come up with the cost!

If the United States Post Office is unable to control their OWN costs then they ARE most definately fiscally irresponsible!

Now quit with your BIG Government, "Oh no! We gotta survive now without the Federal Government like every other private business" crying and move on already !!! If you are unable to get it by now, after explaining it to you time and time and time again, then I don't know what else to do for you. I addressed your issue and I can't break it down any simpler, you just don't like the answer. Rather you sound like a Big Goverment liberal who believes it's the Government's job to take responsibility for someone else's problems, heaven forbit a company or individual "grows up" to accept some PERSONAL responsibility for once!!!!

again you have no concept of the topic of discussion and have tried to create one of your own out of thin air and apparently there is no stopping you from continuing to engage in nonresponsive bs that has nothing to do with things that I have actually said.

Now if you could please for just once try to address argument that I have actually made that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[drsmith1072]

Boy oh boy, the long knives are out by those who think income must be equal and fair. Once again we see that politicians want to decide how much anyone, be they individual or corporation should make.

Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits - The Hill's Floor Action

This bill, if by some freak of nature, passes will be the death knell of oil businesses in this nation and the loss of millions and millions of jobs because prices will spiral out of control.

You know, sometimes I wonder if people have had it too good. Particularly those who propose such abject stupidity as good policy.

Again for the cheap seats: Wealth is EARNED not DISTRIBUTED nor RE-DISTRIBUTED.

Hmm? and yet here in this thread shackles argues that "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." So now the argument goes back to who and how do you decide what an "equal share" is.

LOL

and back to one of your previous arguments who and how do we decide who "earns" what and whether they "deserve" it or not??

Furthermore, do you actually believe that oil companies if given the opportunity to gain access to such a limited resource as oil that they would actually refuse to go after it?? Furthermore IF the big oil companies do refuse the won't the free market allow for a smaller company to come in and do what they refuse to do??

Also if profits ARE capped how and why would prices skyrocket if the oil companies gain nothing by exceding the profit cap??

 

[impalero]

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.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

This is too funny.
Some people, especially the elite in our government just do not get it.

It is not envy but disgust.

They are not only insulated from the real world but dumb as well.

I guess those that had shown displeasure against Hitler when he was killing millions in the concentration camps, were just envious of Hitler and wanted to be there themselves doing the raping and killing as well.

One thing this country used to pride itself on was equality of oppurtunity and equality in the election process.

When you can buy the government you want, you have shirked your responsibility in the free market, you have subverted the equality of opportunity and put yourself at the head of the line, you have also subverted the election process where all should have an equal say of voting power.

When money entered into the equation as free speech, it completely destroyed our country, because it is only then, those with money, have a say in how government is run. It no longer represents the majority of the people in this country but a small select few which is tyranny.

Look at all the Big Banks and Corporations that Obama, Bush, Clinton etc have served at the expense to the rest of the country.

The only place left for us to go now is to crash and burn, and I hope those that support these criminals in charge go straight to hell along with them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

This is too funny.
Some people, especially the elite in our government just do not get it.

It is not envy but disgust.

They are not only insulated from the real world but dumb as well.

I guess those that had shown displeasure against Hitler when he was killing millions in the concentration camps, were just envious of Hitler and wanted to be there themselves doing the raping and killing as well.

One thing this country used to pride itself on was equality of oppurtunity and equality in the election process.

When you can buy the government you want, you have shirked your responsibility in the free market, you have subverted the equality of opportunity and put yourself at the head of the line, you have also subverted the election process where all should have an equal say of voting power.

When money entered into the equation as free speech, it completely destroyed our country, because it is only then, those with money, have a say in how government is run. It no longer represents the majority of the people in this country but a small select few which is tyranny.

Look at all the Big Banks and Corporations that Obama, Bush, Clinton etc have served at the expense to the rest of the country.

The only place left for us to go now is to crash and burn, and I hope those that support these criminals in charge go straight to hell along with them.

When money entered into the equation as free speech

When in history was money not in the equation?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Furthermore since you went the way of once again trying to argue that there must be an "equal share" to pay off a common debt (which in reality has NOTHING to do with the defition of "class warfare" anywhere but in your own warped little mind, can you state for a FACT and prove that all private and public workers are paying an "equal share" to git rid of this common debt since walker fot his way??

In addition, your continued BS spin about the post office as you continue to ignore the fact that the requirement placed on the post office to "PRE-FUND 100% of their FUTURE retirees" is what created a large portion of their problem and that if they had similar funding requirements as other government agencies and private entitites they would not have that problem to deal with.

Would you like a box of Kleenex would that help? lol Apparently crying the same old whining crap about how the United States Post Office has to (dare we say) come up with a way to pay for their own benefits like every "financially responsible" company, is all I'm hearing from you.

What about some links that shares your point of view and supports your argument? How come you haven't found any? You seem to be surprisingly unable to provide me with at least one, that supports and shares your argument that this is a case of class warfare.

Enough of your "opinion" spin, I'm tired of hearing from a whining bloviating complainer. If you can't support your case with any links, then you don't have an argument, because apparently no one else shares in your "class warfare" definition viewpoint with regard to the U.S. Post Office. Put up or shut up.

 

[Big Fitz]

Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

Defending income inequity is just CLASS WAR.

If a poor person manages to get his or her shit together, or win the lottery or somehow... ohhh I dunno... WORK their way out of being poor anymore, should they not be allowed to keep their money and... hmmmmm.... NOT be poor anymore?

That's what conservatives fight for. For YOU regardless of your station or class in life to become well off and keep your profits so you may have the abundant life! Not to sit there and have someone bitch you have too much and then take it from you KEEPING you poor.

You know, I remember hearing a story about NFL players having major problems with taxes after becoming big stars and getting those million dollar paychecks. They did not understand why the government took so much of their dough. They always got checks back before. Real shock to their system to suddenly go from poor kid to rich fuck in one quick year. Some never get it or recover. Others wake up to the bullshit they've been taught their entire life.

 

[Gadawg73]

I remember in the early 60s in my neighborhood in Raleigh NC. The man down the road, Mr. Parsons, owned the local hardware store, a 5 and dime store and a dry cleaners. He sponsored the Little League baseball team I played on.
I vividly rememver the Ford Thunderbird and Corvette convertible he drove. One day I was out in the hot sun as a 9 year old raking grass and picking weeds in the yard. Dad came out to bring me some water.
Dad was a school principal at that time in the early 60s. As I was drinking my water and Dad was giving me my next chore Mr. Parsons came whizzing by with the top down in his Corvette. "There goes Mr. Parsons son, work real work and one day you just might be like him. He sure is a good role model and does a lot of good investing in the community with his businesses."
Now turn today and the Obama rhetoric:
"There goes Mr. Parsons. He stole everything he has from the gullible neighbors. He already has a Thunderbird so why does ne need a Corvette too. He is greedy and evil and it is not fair that he has more than us."
That is the mentality 100% of the Occutard movement.

 

[drsmith1072]

Furthermore since you went the way of once again trying to argue that there must be an "equal share" to pay off a common debt (which in reality has NOTHING to do with the defition of "class warfare" anywhere but in your own warped little mind, can you state for a FACT and prove that all private and public workers are paying an "equal share" to git rid of this common debt since walker fot his way??

In addition, your continued BS spin about the post office as you continue to ignore the fact that the requirement placed on the post office to "PRE-FUND 100% of their FUTURE retirees" is what created a large portion of their problem and that if they had similar funding requirements as other government agencies and private entitites they would not have that problem to deal with.

Would you like a box of Kleenex would that help? lol Apparently crying the same old whining crap about how the United States Post Office has to (dare we say) come up with a way to pay for their own benefits like every "financially responsible" company, is all I'm hearing from you.

Once again you show your ignorance. the problem is that they are not required to act just like every other "financially responsible" company because the actions of the republicans in congress. How many more times does this have to be explained and shown to you before you understand that the requirements placed on the post office are far greater than the responsibilities of other companies and government entities?

What about some links that shares your point of view and supports your argument? How come you haven't found any? You seem to be surprisingly unable to provide me with at least one, that supports and shares your argument that this is a case of class warfare.

So your own definition of class warfare isn't good enough? I showed how your own defintion applied and you responded by bascially saying "nuh uh" and running away. If your own definition isn't good enough then that's your problem.
BTW when and where did you provide a link to support your definition?? Why is it that you don't have to provide a link but I do?

Enough of your "opinion" spin, I'm tired of hearing from a whining bloviating complainer.

Then stop posting your ubsubstantiated whining opinions and your problem is solved. LOL

If you can't support your case with any links, then you don't have an argument, because apparently no one else shares in your "class warfare" definition viewpoint with regard to the U.S. Post Office. Put up or shut up.

I provided several links describing what the post office is required to do based on the legislation passed by republicans but apparently you thought attacking me personally served your purposes better than proving your idiocy by trying to post a counter argument when you obviously have NONE.

 

[drsmith1072]

Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

Defending income inequity is just CLASS WAR.

If a poor person manages to get his or her shit together, or win the lottery or somehow... ohhh I dunno... WORK their way out of being poor anymore, should they not be allowed to keep their money and... hmmmmm.... NOT be poor anymore?

That's what conservatives fight for. For YOU regardless of your station or class in life to become well off and keep your profits so you may have the abundant life! Not to sit there and have someone bitch you have too much and then take it from you KEEPING you poor.

How many people are actually arguing that ALL of anyone's "profits" should be taken from them??

How many people are "bitching" that middle class people have "too much" and want to take it from them to keep them poor??

You do realize that it is a long way from rich to poor don't you? Or are you saying there is no middle class and that there are just two classes, rich and poor?

It seems to me that you are fighting for reasons that do not exist.

 

[drsmith1072]

I remember in the early 60s in my neighborhood in Raleigh NC. The man down the road, Mr. Parsons, owned the local hardware store, a 5 and dime store and a dry cleaners. He sponsored the Little League baseball team I played on.
I vividly rememver the Ford Thunderbird and Corvette convertible he drove. One day I was out in the hot sun as a 9 year old raking grass and picking weeds in the yard. Dad came out to bring me some water.
Dad was a school principal at that time in the early 60s. As I was drinking my water and Dad was giving me my next chore Mr. Parsons came whizzing by with the top down in his Corvette. "There goes Mr. Parsons son, work real work and one day you just might be like him. He sure is a good role model and does a lot of good investing in the community with his businesses."
Now turn today and the Obama rhetoric:
"There goes Mr. Parsons. He stole everything he has from the gullible neighbors. He already has a Thunderbird so why does ne need a Corvette too. He is greedy and evil and it is not fair that he has more than us."
That is the mentality 100% of the Occutard movement.

LOL Now if you could please come back to reality that would be greatly appreciated. LOL

Personally, I think it's hilarious that you have to make shite up and attribute fictional quotes to obama in a desperate attempt to support your baseless opinions. LOL

Now tell us the story about the abandoned haunted house in your neighborhood that no one dared spend a single night it because the last kid who tried was never heard from again. LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love you idiots who want to blame everything on the so called rich or on corporations that somehow are robbing you of your shot to make money.

Here's something for all you fucking sheep to think about. I'll write in small words so you can understand.

If Joe Business walks into Senator Asshole's office with 100K in cash and asks Senator Asshole to give hm some consideration on a bill, that would be illegal right?

Right 100% illegal and both parties are indicted.

Now if Joe Business says to Senator Asshole, "I have 20,000 shares of my company I can sell you at $5 apiece before our IPO and when we go public that stock will be worth $100 apiece. And I'll even sell them to you on margin so you don't have to come up with the purchase price"

Now Senator asshole makes 2 million dollars on a stock trade the day of Joe Business's IPO.

Illegal?

FUCK NO.

And do you know why it's not illegal?

Because the fucking corrupt Senators and Congressman passed a fucking law to make it legal.


And you fucking morons are whining about corporations.

IDIOTS!