The real “takers” in America are the unproductive, rent-extracting rich

[Mac1958]

.

The piece, and the argument, assume that "rentiers" just had the properties that they own fall into their laps. These people had to create whatever wealth it took for them to acquire that property, just as a homeowner does; they had to deal with the requisite risks of that wealth creation; they continue to take risks with the value of the property and uncertain payments of rents, among other things.

Intellectual dishonesty by omission, no thanks.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Private sector parasites - Salon.com

Good post and good topic. The irony is that I'm reading the below book right now that says that very same thing.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-Rise-Global-Super-Rich-Everyone/dp/1594204098]Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else: Chrystia Freeland: 9781594204098: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

The irony is that you and Nitroz are both equally stupid. "taking" has a specific definition. It means acquiring someone else's property by force without their permission. None of the people you two idiots call "takers" have acquired their wealth in such a fashion. Only government and armed robbers do that.

 

[bripat9643]

Private sector parasites - Salon.com

Good post and good topic. The irony is that I'm reading the below book right now that says that very same thing.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-Rise-Global-Super-Rich-Everyone/dp/1594204098]Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else: Chrystia Freeland: 9781594204098: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Always amazes me that the trailer dwellers in jesusland will defend these people and vote against their own interests

Destroying capitalism isn't in anyone's best interest, numskull. The people who followed your hero Che found that out when he lined them up in front of a firing squad.

 

[Sallow]

Solon.com

'nuff said.

Well if you disagree with it..you should say something that supports your position.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Truthmatters]

more class warfare....HATE THEM RICH

then they turn around and vote for them..cracks me up

SEVEN out the top ten richest people in Congress, DEMOCRATS

salon a propaganda arm of the Democrat-Progressive-Commie party

The richest members of Congress - Aug. 21, 2012

If you had bothered to read some of what was posted you would realize they are NOT talking about EVERYONE who is wealthy.


You are such a limited person.

You Never truely discuss anything.

You merely react as if its YOU personally that is being discussed.


When you have a country or world where MORE and MORE people are falling into poverty and fewer and fewer people have all the resources there is something going wrong.

Why do you wish to return to the days of kings and queens?

well we were all told the Dear Leader was going to fix all that, how can more be in poverty after four years of his wonderful policies..

still cracks me up, your rich Reprentives are for fixing things, as long as it's NOT THEIR MONEY..theirs stays in theirs bank accounts and they get RICHER....and you people fall it...lol

why are you incapable of understanding its not the wealthy that are the problem its the welalthy who use their wealth in such a way as to impoverish other people so they can be MORE rich.


Its the actions not just the bank account.


your just too mentally limmited to have any decent discussion with

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Private sector parasites - Salon.com

Good post and good topic. The irony is that I'm reading the below book right now that says that very same thing.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-Rise-Global-Super-Rich-Everyone/dp/1594204098]Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else: Chrystia Freeland: 9781594204098: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

The irony is that you and Nitroz are both equally stupid. "taking" has a specific definition. It means acquiring someone else's property by force without their permission. None of the people you two idiots call "takers" have acquired their wealth in such a fashion. Only government and armed robbers do that.

Circle jerk go bad last night? Anyway, yea, the government is involved because they're the ones who donate huge to getting "their" candidates elected. When you have the government tilting the playing field in your favor, you're off and running.

I don't know where the fuck you are getting "acquiring someone else's property by force." "The People" are not doing that. The people you glorify ARE, and that's why the 1% are the only ones enjoying this "golden age" for them. What's a hedge fund manager produce, besides more wealth for the already wealthy? Nothing.

I get that this subject is way over your head, and that's why the likes of you and Stephony want to drag it down to a simplistic partisan fight, like everything else you sheep are trained to do.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Good post and good topic. The irony is that I'm reading the below book right now that says that very same thing.

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else: Chrystia Freeland: 9781594204098: Amazon.com: Books

Always amazes me that the trailer dwellers in jesusland will defend these people and vote against their own interests

Destroying capitalism isn't in anyone's best interest, numskull. The people who followed your hero Che found that out when he lined them up in front of a firing squad.

While you're stuffing yourself full of oysters getting ready for tonight's circle jerk, you might want to know - but won't believe because you partisan sheep can't think for yourselves - that the people who research this new Gilded Age globally are NOT socialists or think Communism is a better economic system. In fact it's just the very opposite. They decry what's getting in the way of true functioning capitalism. Again, out of your league.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

See, current IMPORTANT events are passing partisan sheep by. Recent article shows that the informed are paying attention to what's happening globally that directly impacts our country.

Column: A Conspiracy Fact

 

[American76Pride]

I agree with you that the private sector is full of parasites who extract wealth from the working people, but progressive policies and socialistic policies will also reward parasites and extract wealth from the working people, only this time they'll be lazy workers who don't produce as much as the hard worker in the next cubicle/cash register line/wherever the two said workers work and produce profit and the government extracts the wealth via high taxation.

Basically there are going to be parasites on both sides of the economic spectrum (capitalism vs. socialism), so it's better to have a middle ground between capitalism and socialism so the disadvantaged get the aid they need, and the ones who do hard work are also given the product of their labor rather than lazy pot smoking hippies.

 

[bripat9643]

See, current IMPORTANT events are passing partisan sheep by. Recent article shows that the informed are paying attention to what's happening globally that directly impacts our country.

Column: A Conspiracy Fact

The central fact that your partisan hack glazes over is that government is responsible for the sub-prime mortgage debacle, not Goldman Sachs.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Yea, it was Henry George, who grew up poor, but is know known and still studied as the most famous person in American history no one talks about today, and should be.

Henry George: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[PredFan]

The problem with the thread and the article, well, one of the many problems, is that the label "takers" implies that they simply take. That is completely wrong. The "Takers" are those who produce nothing yet demand to recieve. The welfare brood mares and the rest of the paracites.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

The problem with the thread and the article, well, one of the many problems, is that the label "takers" implies that they simply take. That is completely wrong. The "Takers" are those who produce nothing yet demand to recieve. The welfare brood mares and the rest of the paracites.

No, you see the "takers" as the welfare queens raising 5 kids by 5 different dads with a check that wouldn't even fill up a big pickup truck with gas. The new "takers" of today ARE true takers who do nothing to provide jobs and when they do, they are so poorly paying as to not afford the worker the opportunity to invest BACK into the economy. Now we're talking the REAL wealthy - the new breed of billionaires who make money in their sleep. So as to not get it fucked up, we're NOT talking about the guy who owns the book publishing company of 50 people, for example. We're talking WEALTHY. Shaq is rich - Bill Gates is WEALTHY.

 

[PredFan]

The problem with the thread and the article, well, one of the many problems, is that the label "takers" implies that they simply take. That is completely wrong. The "Takers" are those who produce nothing yet demand to recieve. The welfare brood mares and the rest of the paracites.

No, you see the "takers" as the welfare queens raising 5 kids by 5 different dads with a check that wouldn't even fill up a big pickup truck with gas. The new "takers" of today ARE true takers who do nothing to provide jobs and when they do, they are so poorly paying as to not afford the worker the opportunity to invest BACK into the economy. Now we're talking the REAL wealthy - the new breed of billionaires who make money in their sleep. So as to not get it fucked up, we're NOT talking about the guy who owns the book publishing company of 50 people, for example. We're talking WEALTHY. Shaq is rich - Bill Gates is WEALTHY.

How in the world do you justify calling them Takers? Because they don't provide jobs? Because they don't provide what the worker would call good pay? You do understand the definition of "take" don't you?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

The problem with the thread and the article, well, one of the many problems, is that the label "takers" implies that they simply take. That is completely wrong. The "Takers" are those who produce nothing yet demand to recieve. The welfare brood mares and the rest of the paracites.

No, you see the "takers" as the welfare queens raising 5 kids by 5 different dads with a check that wouldn't even fill up a big pickup truck with gas. The new "takers" of today ARE true takers who do nothing to provide jobs and when they do, they are so poorly paying as to not afford the worker the opportunity to invest BACK into the economy. Now we're talking the REAL wealthy - the new breed of billionaires who make money in their sleep. So as to not get it fucked up, we're NOT talking about the guy who owns the book publishing company of 50 people, for example. We're talking WEALTHY. Shaq is rich - Bill Gates is WEALTHY.

How in the world do you justify calling them Takers? Because they don't provide jobs? Because they don't provide what the worker would call good pay? You do understand the definition of "take" don't you?

I would have to agree to a point. It wouldn't technically be "taking" because they politicians they paid for and put in office rigged the laws their way, bailed them out, so no, they're not doing anything illegal. Immoral, unethical and certainly unAmerican, but not against the laws as written. They take money out of the economy and hoard it offshore instead of reinvesting in America, so in that context they are takers. I don't think any of us can really comprehend just how much they have. I read of one of these tip-top 1%ers having a fuckin' yacht with THREE helicopter landing pads, tennis court, swimming pool, and shit I forget what else. That's world-class wealth, not the Brady Bunch houseowner who owns the local hardware store.

 

[PredFan]

No, you see the "takers" as the welfare queens raising 5 kids by 5 different dads with a check that wouldn't even fill up a big pickup truck with gas. The new "takers" of today ARE true takers who do nothing to provide jobs and when they do, they are so poorly paying as to not afford the worker the opportunity to invest BACK into the economy. Now we're talking the REAL wealthy - the new breed of billionaires who make money in their sleep. So as to not get it fucked up, we're NOT talking about the guy who owns the book publishing company of 50 people, for example. We're talking WEALTHY. Shaq is rich - Bill Gates is WEALTHY.

How in the world do you justify calling them Takers? Because they don't provide jobs? Because they don't provide what the worker would call good pay? You do understand the definition of "take" don't you?

I would have to agree to a point. It wouldn't technically be "taking" because they politicians they paid for and put in office rigged the laws their way, bailed them out, so no, they're not doing anything illegal. Immoral, unethical and certainly unAmerican, but not against the laws as written. They take money out of the economy and hoard it offshore instead of reinvesting in America, so in that context they are takers. I don't think any of us can really comprehend just how much they have. I read of one of these tip-top 1%ers having a fuckin' yacht with THREE helicopter landing pads, tennis court, swimming pool, and shit I forget what else. That's world-class wealth, not the Brady Bunch houseowner who owns the local hardware store.

It's their money, they earned it. They cannot take what is theirs. It is theirs so they can put it wherever they want to, do with it whatever they want to. They aren't taking it by any rational definition of the word. Who gives a flying fuck how many yachts they have? Wealth is NOT finite. You need to stop reading from left wing hacks and start using your critical thinking skills. That's what you get for giving any creedence to Salon.com

 

[bripat9643]

So who did Bill Gates "take" from?

 

[Stephanie]

lol, don't you love it, the Shaq is only rich...I wonder who he took that money from? hummmm

 

[bripat9643]

You're simply redefining the term "egalitarian" to fit your political agenda. this country has never practiced egalitarianism, especially not during the 19th century, which is the period hacks like you call the age of the Robber Barons. If egalitarianism doesn't mean socialism, then what is it? Perhaps you could grace us with your definition.

By the way, your quote is proof that Voltaire was an idiot. People don't get rich by selling stuff to poor people. The poor couldn't afford Henry Ford's Model T or Apple's iPhone.

 

[PredFan]

Not only that but he thinks Bill Gates doesn't produce anything.