Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you want to listen to the Rich, I posted a quote from Andrew Carnegie.
Hey, I can appreciate Carnegie and what he's saying, money isn't everything. I personally know very wealthy people who benevolently give massive amounts of their fortunes to various philanthropic causes. That's the great thing about having lots of really wealthy people around, the money flows generously.
What I can't figure out is why your stupid ass wants to make this the enemy?
Yer kidding. You are so out of touch, it;'s comicalWe should continue to subsidize the Walton's who inherited their wealth and don't have enough billions stashed away. Without our help they will take a half a decade to reach a 200 billion dollar stash of cash.
The Waltons are subsidizing government by providing employment and a career path to low, low end workers who otherwise could not support themselves at all.
Walmart didn't create retailing. They replaced others in retailing.
The workers you're referring to would be working at other retailers doing what Walmart does if Walmart didn't exist.
Holy shit.There is no getting even or punishment. In fact, our wealthy have been enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in generations. Our working class has suffered for it. The rising tide does not lift all boats.....it only lifts the yachtsOh yes you are. In fact you demand it. Your side has put forth the idea that taxation on anyone with whom you feel has an uncomfortable amount of wealth or earns more than an imaginary wage or salary for the sole purpose of "getting even" or to punish.Nobody is asking to take money away from rich people and give it to the poor. What we are asking is why does our government continue economic policies that ensure more wealth is distributed at the top. These policies were supposed to result in more jobs and a rising economic tide that benefitted everyoneThe propaganda is the belief that wealth should be equally distributed in society.Propaganda? If decrying the sorry state of wealth distribution is propaganda then what is your cheerleading for a flawed system that clearly leaves so many in want? Look at the reality of things, sure there is wealth being generated but not by wage earners. We do not have a perfect system, it is not a class war to examine the flaws and attempt to address them.Again... This is the kind of propaganda you believe when you think wealth is finite.
It is class warfare to deliberately seek to harm one group of people out of greed and envy. People who are in want are people who are striving to be more than they are. Or they used to be. Until the mentality such as yours comes along and eliminates the need for people to strive to be better.
Rather they have it handed to them through false prophecy of compassion than to hunger to be better.
Those policies did not work.....why do we continue them?
On this alleged government policy which benefits only those with wealth, I have a question. Which policy might that be?
BTW, that idea of a rising tide lifts all boats is a maritime concept based on the laws of physics. It has nothing to do with economics, It is simply a cry out for help from government to make laws to equalize that which you are convinced must be equal.
Finally, you are free to conceptualize and then produce YOUR solution to this alleged government policy.
Have at it. If you dare.
Time to admit we made a mistake and move on
More of the tax burden has shifted to the middle class, they also receive fewer benefits, pay a higher percentage for education and healthcareHoly shit.There is no getting even or punishment. In fact, our wealthy have been enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in generations. Our working class has suffered for it. The rising tide does not lift all boats.....it only lifts the yachtsOh yes you are. In fact you demand it. Your side has put forth the idea that taxation on anyone with whom you feel has an uncomfortable amount of wealth or earns more than an imaginary wage or salary for the sole purpose of "getting even" or to punish.Nobody is asking to take money away from rich people and give it to the poor. What we are asking is why does our government continue economic policies that ensure more wealth is distributed at the top. These policies were supposed to result in more jobs and a rising economic tide that benefitted everyoneThe propaganda is the belief that wealth should be equally distributed in society.Propaganda? If decrying the sorry state of wealth distribution is propaganda then what is your cheerleading for a flawed system that clearly leaves so many in want? Look at the reality of things, sure there is wealth being generated but not by wage earners. We do not have a perfect system, it is not a class war to examine the flaws and attempt to address them.
It is class warfare to deliberately seek to harm one group of people out of greed and envy. People who are in want are people who are striving to be more than they are. Or they used to be. Until the mentality such as yours comes along and eliminates the need for people to strive to be better.
Rather they have it handed to them through false prophecy of compassion than to hunger to be better.
Those policies did not work.....why do we continue them?
On this alleged government policy which benefits only those with wealth, I have a question. Which policy might that be?
BTW, that idea of a rising tide lifts all boats is a maritime concept based on the laws of physics. It has nothing to do with economics, It is simply a cry out for help from government to make laws to equalize that which you are convinced must be equal.
Finally, you are free to conceptualize and then produce YOUR solution to this alleged government policy.
Have at it. If you dare.
Time to admit we made a mistake and move on
Ok, make the connection between taxation and the net wealth of the "working class".
I am still waiting for YOUR solution to government policies which YOU claim are in place to benefit the wealthy.
Apparently there has been a mistake made in the system of capitalism. So go ahead. Perfect our lives.
Failing a solution, your posts are mere complaints.
So you want to listen to the Rich, I posted a quote from Andrew Carnegie.
Hey, I can appreciate Carnegie and what he's saying, money isn't everything. I personally know very wealthy people who benevolently give massive amounts of their fortunes to various philanthropic causes. That's the great thing about having lots of really wealthy people around, the money flows generously.
What I can't figure out is why your stupid ass wants to make this the enemy?
If we cannot feed the many, we cannot protect the few. JFK, or RFK, it doesn't matter who said it, it happens to be the truth. There's more, but hell, you don't care about any of it. There will be a correction, or there will be blood in the streets. Or there will be blood in the streets and THEN a correction. In any case, there WILL be a correction.
Everywhere but in Libertarian hell it isSo you want to listen to the Rich, I posted a quote from Andrew Carnegie.
Hey, I can appreciate Carnegie and what he's saying, money isn't everything. I personally know very wealthy people who benevolently give massive amounts of their fortunes to various philanthropic causes. That's the great thing about having lots of really wealthy people around, the money flows generously.
What I can't figure out is why your stupid ass wants to make this the enemy?
If we cannot feed the many, we cannot protect the few. JFK, or RFK, it doesn't matter who said it, it happens to be the truth. There's more, but hell, you don't care about any of it. There will be a correction, or there will be blood in the streets. Or there will be blood in the streets and THEN a correction. In any case, there WILL be a correction.
It's not the "few's" responsibility to "feed the many." It's the "many's" responsibility to feed themselves. If the "few" feel like giving to charity then that's a good thing. But it's not the government's job to determine which charities the "few" must give to. If the "many" want to eat then they need to learn how to plant crops and raise rabbits.
It's none of your business what other people determine is their business. The Walton's are dependent on county, state and federal laws to operate their business the way they do. They mooch off those governments and hence, tax payers, to subsidize their low paid employees. That increases their wealth, so it is everyone's business since everyone is putting money in their pockets.What the Walton family does with its cash reserves is none of your business.We should continue to subsidize the Walton's who inherited their wealth and don't have enough billions stashed away. Without our help they will take a half a decade to reach a 200 billion dollar stash of cash.
Miserable grumpy and greedy people don't determine what citizens and tax payers responsibilities are. The people decide that through elected officials.Generations of citizens and tax payers have continuously and consistently elected to feed the poor and provide other benefits to the most vulnerable members of our society as a responsibility. Those who want to whine and complain about it have the option of electing officials who agree with their selfish proposals.So you want to listen to the Rich, I posted a quote from Andrew Carnegie.
Hey, I can appreciate Carnegie and what he's saying, money isn't everything. I personally know very wealthy people who benevolently give massive amounts of their fortunes to various philanthropic causes. That's the great thing about having lots of really wealthy people around, the money flows generously.
What I can't figure out is why your stupid ass wants to make this the enemy?
If we cannot feed the many, we cannot protect the few. JFK, or RFK, it doesn't matter who said it, it happens to be the truth. There's more, but hell, you don't care about any of it. There will be a correction, or there will be blood in the streets. Or there will be blood in the streets and THEN a correction. In any case, there WILL be a correction.
It's not the "few's" responsibility to "feed the many." It's the "many's" responsibility to feed themselves. If the "few" feel like giving to charity then that's a good thing. But it's not the government's job to determine which charities the "few" must give to. If the "many" want to eat then they need to learn how to plant crops and raise rabbits.
Our system has all but stopped creating middle-class wealth, the part that allows poor people through hard work and dedication to level up is not currently working as it should. Something about the great recession short-circuited it. It's far too easy to blame poor people for being lazy than to look at the structural flaws that keep people where they are in spite of any amount of diligence. The high cost of a quality education is one such barrier along with the millstone of debt that accompanies it. Flat wages are another problem, if a rising tide raises all boats than wages would have been keeping pace with the cost of living but they have not. The trouble is that you are looking too much at the people who started the race to the top at the finish line instead of the bottom.
Workers are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the value they produce:
Wages as a percentage of productivity
The reason is straightforward- employers are keeping a larger and larger share of the value workers produce for themselves:
How worker productivity is divided up
As our tax system has gotten less progressive, and the rich have consumed a larger and larger share of our nation's wealth, our GDP growth has slowed significantly on average:
GDP growth and the top tax bracket
None of this stuff has anything to do with hating the rich or something, it is just a question of whether that change is a good thing for our country or a bad thing. I think it is clearly a bad thing. People have much less incentive to work hard if they aren't sharing in the successes they create, we need much more educated workers and we need consumers that have enough surplus income to buy things or else the companies' revenues collapse. Ensuring that working people get a bigger slice of what they create is just sensible economic policy. All this emotional stuff is totally irrelevant.
I can produce the simple fact that if a business with an owner and 10 employees produced a million dollars of profit in a year and the owner kept 800,000 and paid his employees 20,000 each, or if the owner kept 500,000 and paid his employees 50,000 each,
his employees would know the difference.
Lots of people did all that and still lost, the "life isn't fair" dodge is frequently used to cover for reckless policy and predatory business practices, will it ever be time to make the economically powerful accountable for their actions?The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.
Human speed is "finite" but there are always going to be the fastest runners.
Human intelligence is "finite" but not everyone will reach genius status.
Football games are regulated by time and rules but there can only be one Super Bowl trophy awarded.
Life simply isn't "fair" nor has it ever been. Time to get over it and do the best with what you got. Want more money? Invent something; earn a degree and get a better job; work longer hours; stop spending as much and invest more wisely; etc.
I agree with you. Let's start making people accountable. Let's do away with all forms of welfare, Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and allow companies to indiscriminately fire employees who aren't worth that wage.
Business would be fine, and losers would be starving daily. Accountability right?
Oh no, no, no, no, no. Libs want what the rich have but only want to work part time; continue getting their welfare checks; and put forth a half-ass effort to get it. They're perpetual "wanters" ... not "earners."
I actually read an interesting treatise on this subject awhile back, can't recall where.
Anyway the writer suggested, and backed this up with actual figures, that it would be cheaper for all concerned if the USG simply shut down all welfare programs, Just completely shuttered them, and then just sent every adult American a check for $30K once a year, and those who wanted to have more could get a job, while those who did not want to work could make do with $30K.
His solution also required getting rid of the income tax and going with a 10% national sales tax at the retail level.
He opined that it would result in better , and better paid, employees in every industry and would do a far better job of eliminating poverty than the welfare programs we have now.
I think I agree with him.
Workers are getting a smaller and smaller slice of the value they produce:
Wages as a percentage of productivity
The reason is straightforward- employers are keeping a larger and larger share of the value workers produce for themselves:
How worker productivity is divided up
As our tax system has gotten less progressive, and the rich have consumed a larger and larger share of our nation's wealth, our GDP growth has slowed significantly on average:
GDP growth and the top tax bracket
None of this stuff has anything to do with hating the rich or something, it is just a question of whether that change is a good thing for our country or a bad thing. I think it is clearly a bad thing. People have much less incentive to work hard if they aren't sharing in the successes they create, we need much more educated workers and we need consumers that have enough surplus income to buy things or else the companies' revenues collapse. Ensuring that working people get a bigger slice of what they create is just sensible economic policy. All this emotional stuff is totally irrelevant.
No it is NOT. Wealth is created. Of course there is no use pointing out the hundreds of reasons why your idea is incorrect because you do not hold your premise in logic. Nor can you produce a single fact that it is correct. You can produce a theory or two. Yours has close ties to the Keynesian theory of the zero sum game. That theory has been debunked in do many ways, that it is largely ignored as a socialist fantasy.The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.
Plainly spoken, you are a believer in the possibility of a socialist utopia. A place where there is equality of outcome. That every person is entitled to share an equal portion of the efforts of others. So be it.
I can produce the simple fact that if a business with an owner and 10 employees produced a million dollars of profit in a year and the owner kept 800,000 and paid his employees 20,000 each, or if the owner kept 500,000 and paid his employees 50,000 each,
his employees would know the difference.
And yet the the free marketeers continually claim that hard work, sensible spending and dedication is all you need for success, they claim a kind of inherent fairness in capitalism that does not exist.Lots of people did all that and still lost, the "life isn't fair" dodge is frequently used to cover for reckless policy and predatory business practices, will it ever be time to make the economically powerful accountable for their actions?The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.
Human speed is "finite" but there are always going to be the fastest runners.
Human intelligence is "finite" but not everyone will reach genius status.
Football games are regulated by time and rules but there can only be one Super Bowl trophy awarded.
Life simply isn't "fair" nor has it ever been. Time to get over it and do the best with what you got. Want more money? Invent something; earn a degree and get a better job; work longer hours; stop spending as much and invest more wisely; etc.
And yet ... life still isn't fair. Not everyone wins the Lotto.
A few years ago some people started a sub shop down the road from me. It was very clear that they were dedicated, sensible, and hard working.
They shut down in about a year. Not enough customers. Hard work as the guarantee of success is tripe.
No it is NOT. Wealth is created. Of course there is no use pointing out the hundreds of reasons why your idea is incorrect because you do not hold your premise in logic. Nor can you produce a single fact that it is correct. You can produce a theory or two. Yours has close ties to the Keynesian theory of the zero sum game. That theory has been debunked in do many ways, that it is largely ignored as a socialist fantasy.The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.
Plainly spoken, you are a believer in the possibility of a socialist utopia. A place where there is equality of outcome. That every person is entitled to share an equal portion of the efforts of others. So be it.
I can produce the simple fact that if a business with an owner and 10 employees produced a million dollars of profit in a year and the owner kept 800,000 and paid his employees 20,000 each, or if the owner kept 500,000 and paid his employees 50,000 each
his employees would know the difference.
There is a fine line between being a responsible business owner and being a greedy business owner, I grant you that. But likewise there is a fine line between being an employee who wants to be treated right and being a greedy fucker who thinks he deserves what the owner makes to. BOTH are problems.
Lots of people did all that and still lost, the "life isn't fair" dodge is frequently used to cover for reckless policy and predatory business practices, will it ever be time to make the economically powerful accountable for their actions?Human speed is "finite" but there are always going to be the fastest runners.
Human intelligence is "finite" but not everyone will reach genius status.
Football games are regulated by time and rules but there can only be one Super Bowl trophy awarded.
Life simply isn't "fair" nor has it ever been. Time to get over it and do the best with what you got. Want more money? Invent something; earn a degree and get a better job; work longer hours; stop spending as much and invest more wisely; etc.
I agree with you. Let's start making people accountable. Let's do away with all forms of welfare, Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and allow companies to indiscriminately fire employees who aren't worth that wage.
Business would be fine, and losers would be starving daily. Accountability right?
Oh no, no, no, no, no. Libs want what the rich have but only want to work part time; continue getting their welfare checks; and put forth a half-ass effort to get it. They're perpetual "wanters" ... not "earners."
I actually read an interesting treatise on this subject awhile back, can't recall where.
Anyway the writer suggested, and backed this up with actual figures, that it would be cheaper for all concerned if the USG simply shut down all welfare programs, Just completely shuttered them, and then just sent every adult American a check for $30K once a year, and those who wanted to have more could get a job, while those who did not want to work could make do with $30K.
His solution also required getting rid of the income tax and going with a 10% national sales tax at the retail level.
He opined that it would result in better , and better paid, employees in every industry and would do a far better job of eliminating poverty than the welfare programs we have now.
I think I agree with him.
The problem with scenario is that millions of folks wouldn't work two seconds yet rake in $30,000 a year. Where would all that money come from? Trees?
It's none of your business what other people determine is their business. The Walton's are dependent on county, state and federal laws to operate their business the way they do. They mooch off those governments and hence, tax payers, to subsidize their low paid employees. That increases their wealth, so it is everyone's business since everyone is putting money in their pockets.What the Walton family does with its cash reserves is none of your business.We should continue to subsidize the Walton's who inherited their wealth and don't have enough billions stashed away. Without our help they will take a half a decade to reach a 200 billion dollar stash of cash.
