War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Boss]

You sound like a broken record "wealth is infinite" you say? So what? Wealth is an abstract concept. What is real are things like GDP and the supply of raw materials and the energy supply etc. which are not infinite, It is the great tragedy of humanity that resources are not scattered evenly around the world and the people you worship as blameless gods of commerce exploit scarcity for their own profits. Wealth may be infinite because it is an artificial construct but real things that raise humans above abject poverty are not.

Well, wealth is certainly not an abstract concept. It's not a tragedy of humanity that resources aren't evenly distributed around the world, it's just a fact of nature and life. What is a tragedy is that a country as wealthy as ours, with as much going for it as ours, with the potential we have here for wealth acquisition and such, that we are inundated with absolute moronic idiots who have no clue about how even the most rudimentary capitalist system works.

Pompous much? The American capitalist system is rigged to concentrate wealth at the top were it tends to stay. That's a fact of life you need to accept. Not looking for socialism just wanting things to work as you seem to think they currently do where opportunity exists in sufficient quantity where no one has to do without if they simply get some hustle.

The American free market capitalism is not rigged to concentrate wealth at the top, it is a natural phenomenon of capitalism. Can you name any system where wealth does not mostly reside at the top? [Ooops... oh fuck... "the top" just so happens to also mean "the most wealth!" I guess in my abject stupidity, I simply forgot that as long as you have a "top" that's where the wealthiest will be!]

The idea is to provide the opportunity for more people to get to the top, and in a free market system, they do this better than any other system ever invented. Now, as great as the system is, you do still have to try to get to the top to be at the top. If you aren't born with some amazing talent or skill, this might require some hustle.

As smart as humans are, it seems about every generation or two, we spawn enough fools who buy in to the latest incarnation of Marxism, and we eventually have to kill them off and return to being civilized free market capitalists. Communism, Maoism, Socialism, Progressivism... it has to keep changing names due to the abject failure of it's predecessor. But yeah, this is pretty much what you want to replace free market capitalism with.

 

[elektra]

There is no Capitalism in the USA.

There is only subservience to the government.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Wealth is not finite. However, when the wealthy hold the vast majority of the wealth, it reduces long term growth and begins to create greater poverty. This is the exact opposite of what conservatives believe. That does not mean we need a war against the wealthy, but if the wealthy do not begin to fairly redistribute income so that everyone is sharing in the wealth, then eventually those who become poor will revolt and take everything away from the wealthy. This has happened over and over again throughout history. The bottom line is that we do need some redistribution of wealth. That does not mean raping the wealthy or paying McDonald's employees the same as CEO's, but seeing to it that the wealthy are not the only ones benefiting from economic growth.

 

[auditor0007]

You sound like a broken record "wealth is infinite" you say? So what? Wealth is an abstract concept. What is real are things like GDP and the supply of raw materials and the energy supply etc. which are not infinite, It is the great tragedy of humanity that resources are not scattered evenly around the world and the people you worship as blameless gods of commerce exploit scarcity for their own profits. Wealth may be infinite because it is an artificial construct but real things that raise humans above abject poverty are not.

Well, wealth is certainly not an abstract concept. It's not a tragedy of humanity that resources aren't evenly distributed around the world, it's just a fact of nature and life. What is a tragedy is that a country as wealthy as ours, with as much going for it as ours, with the potential we have here for wealth acquisition and such, that we are inundated with absolute moronic idiots who have no clue about how even the most rudimentary capitalist system works.

Pompous much? The American capitalist system is rigged to concentrate wealth at the top were it tends to stay. That's a fact of life you need to accept. Not looking for socialism just wanting things to work as you seem to think they currently do where opportunity exists in sufficient quantity where no one has to do without if they simply get some hustle.

The American free market capitalism is not rigged to concentrate wealth at the top, it is a natural phenomenon of capitalism. Can you name any system where wealth does not mostly reside at the top? [Ooops... oh fuck... "the top" just so happens to also mean "the most wealth!" I guess in my abject stupidity, I simply forgot that as long as you have a "top" that's where the wealthiest will be!]

The idea is to provide the opportunity for more people to get to the top, and in a free market system, they do this better than any other system ever invented. Now, as great as the system is, you do still have to try to get to the top to be at the top. If you aren't born with some amazing talent or skill, this might require some hustle.

As smart as humans are, it seems about every generation or two, we spawn enough fools who buy in to the latest incarnation of Marxism, and we eventually have to kill them off and return to being civilized free market capitalists. Communism, Maoism, Socialism, Progressivism... it has to keep changing names due to the abject failure of it's predecessor. But yeah, this is pretty much what you want to replace free market capitalism with.

The problem with your argument is that you assume the only alternatives are something terrible like "Communism", when in fact we just need some regulations in place to prevent the wealthy from controlling nearly all of the wealth. There is nothing wrong with societies having super wealthy people. It is a problem if those people control more than 50% of all the wealth, and currently in the US, they control over 80%, leaving less than 20% to the remaining 90%. It really does not matter how things got this way. What matters is that it is a problem. When the numbers become so skewed, future wealth all goes to that top 10% and everyone else actually loses wealth as a percentage of total wealth. Eventually that top 10% will control nearly all wealth and everyone else will just be servants to the oligarchy, and when that happens, you get revolution.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wealth is not finite. However, when the wealthy hold the vast majority of the wealth, it reduces long term growth and begins to create greater poverty. This is the exact opposite of what conservatives believe. That does not mean we need a war against the wealthy, but if the wealthy do not begin to fairly redistribute income so that everyone is sharing in the wealth, then eventually those who become poor will revolt and take everything away from the wealthy. This has happened over and over again throughout history. The bottom line is that we do need some redistribution of wealth. That does not mean raping the wealthy or paying McDonald's employees the same as CEO's, but seeing to it that the wealthy are not the only ones benefiting from economic growth.

OK, first off, wealth is not income.
Second, anyone can get wealthy. Look at the richest people in America today. Compare that to 25 years ago. Lots of change going on.
So it isnt like the rich are hoarding wealth and sayng "nah nah you can't have any."
What's going on is there is little job creation and economic growth, leading to stagnation in the middle classes.
Thanks, Obama!

 

[Boss]

Oh, you think that the Left is attacking the rich.....You don't study the Left.

The Left is attacking the rich that buy politicians. Anyone with a brain can see that politicians are puppets that don't stand for American Values, they simply do what is profitable for a select few.

So, The Right Hates the Government and the Left Hates the people who fund the leaders of Government..........A very which came first, the chicken or the egg topic.........Only Citizens United was the answer for a very long time.

The Left is attacking the rich that buy politicians.
And yet, for some odd and strange reason, the very party the Left supports gets about 75%~80% of the corporate political contributions. Isn't that weird? The rich who the Left hates are the biggest donors to the politicians the Left supports.

 

[Boss]

The problem with your argument is that you assume the only alternatives are something terrible like "Communism", when in fact we just need some regulations in place to prevent the wealthy from controlling nearly all of the wealth. There is nothing wrong with societies having super wealthy people. It is a problem if those people control more than 50% of all the wealth, and currently in the US, they control over 80%, leaving less than 20% to the remaining 90%. It really does not matter how things got this way. What matters is that it is a problem. When the numbers become so skewed, future wealth all goes to that top 10% and everyone else actually loses wealth as a percentage of total wealth. Eventually that top 10% will control nearly all wealth and everyone else will just be servants to the oligarchy, and when that happens, you get revolution.

The problem with my argument (as always) is that it's completely over the heads of so many morons. You can slap as much lipstick as you please on the Pig of Marxism, it's still what it is. More regulation preventing free market capitalists from doing what free market capitalists do, is detrimental to the poor and working class. It doesn't prevent the wealthy from controlling most of the wealth, as I explained before, that is a natural phenomenon created by free market capitalism. The wealthy always control most of the wealth, which is why you can't cite examples of systems where someone else controls most of the wealth. In non-free nations, the wealthy also control all political power and authority, media, health system, etc. In such systems, when it comes to redistribution of the wealth, you have what is a very real "trickle down" thing going on.

One problem we're having is understanding basic terms of the argument. Many of you keep talking about the wealthy, poor and middle class as if people simply are born into one or the other and never have any choice in the matter, they are stuck there until they die. The greatest thing about a vibrant free market capitalist system is, everyone has opportunity to become one of the wealthy who control most of the wealth. So this "enemy" you are at war with, is actually the goal and objective you should be aspiring to. As I said... Dumbest idea in the history of man.

 

[edthecynic]

CEOs do not give themselves anything, they are hired, fired and compensated by a board of directors.

Directors/Cronies!
AKA, Crony Capitalism!

 

[edthecynic]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

No the "rich" wage earner pays the bulk of the taxes, the truly wealthy do not work for wages. All who claim that the "rich" pay most of the taxes fail to understand that all income is not taxed the same. Some types of income are taxed less and other types are taxed more. Wages are taxed the most, so it is the richest wage earners who pay the most taxes, not the wealthiest of the "rich."

January 09, 2013
RUSH: Taxing wages at a higher rate than profits is wealth redistribution.

April 8, 2010
RUSH: Now, the super rich, they're protected by their friends in Congress. The people that are rich with no income. You ever wonder why all these rich Democrats [and Republicans] always support tax increases? 'Cause they don't pay them, either, because they don't have earned income.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What you fail to realize is that in a lot of those small business they are sole proprietors meaning their business income is there personal income and expenses vice versa. Also, small businesses don't hvae the cash flow of larger corporations to be able to increase those wages. Lot's of small businesses can't even get credit from banks due to dodd Frank regulatory bill that was passed. Of course they'd have to lay people off. Common sense.

What do those businesses do when their rent increases? How about when their real estate taxes go up? How about when they have to pay more for energy?

Wages are another cost of doing business and minimum wage has been frozen for seven years. None of those other costs have been frozen for seven years

If cost of business in one state becomes to high that prohibits growth for the company that company transfers to a state with a better economic business environment meaning that state just lost jobs. Businesses get prior notices for taxes and some other things you mentioned, so they know and can prepare ahead of time and give out notices.

Same goes for wages. A minimum wage increase would be nation wide so there is no advantage in jumping states

How much of an increase are you talking about?

If it's a few percent no big deal.

If you're talking about a 40% increase like Obama or a more than 100% increase like the unions then that's another thing.

Now let's use the 15 an hour figure for the sake of this post.

If everyone making less that 15 an hour was given a raise overnight do you not think prices for everything would go up?

So now that 15 an hour doesn't really give them that much more purchasing power does it?

But what happens is that everyone making more than 15 an hour will see their purchasing power decline.

So i guess the question is: Do more people make 15 an hour now than less than 15 an hour?

If so is a very slight real increase in purchasing power for those making less than 15 an hour worth the decrease in purchasing power of the higher number of people making more?

I am looking for an increase to $15 an hour over five years
You can't assume a one for one correlation between wages and price increases
The market will adjust to the new wage structure

I never said a one for one.

I said the purchasing power will be less especially for those making 15 an hour now.

 

[edthecynic]

The actual number of so-called "wealthy" people who inherited their wealth is very small. Nearly every one of them had to pay inheritance tax which was about half the wealth they inherited. So we automatically take half their money if they inherit it, but that still isn't enough for your greedy little ass, is it?

Only the most ignorant of the economically ignorant is stupid enough to swallow that bullshit!!!!! The truly wealthy pay no inheritance taxes, they have funds and foundations and "charities" to dodge all inheritance taxes.
What an idiot!

June 14, 2007
RUSH: -- a lot of people, a lot of people wealthy people set up foundations and they do this to keep the government from getting the money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What you fail to realize is that in a lot of those small business they are sole proprietors meaning their business income is there personal income and expenses vice versa. Also, small businesses don't hvae the cash flow of larger corporations to be able to increase those wages. Lot's of small businesses can't even get credit from banks due to dodd Frank regulatory bill that was passed. Of course they'd have to lay people off. Common sense.

What do those businesses do when their rent increases? How about when their real estate taxes go up? How about when they have to pay more for energy?

Wages are another cost of doing business and minimum wage has been frozen for seven years. None of those other costs have been frozen for seven years

If cost of business in one state becomes to high that prohibits growth for the company that company transfers to a state with a better economic business environment meaning that state just lost jobs. Businesses get prior notices for taxes and some other things you mentioned, so they know and can prepare ahead of time and give out notices.

Same goes for wages. A minimum wage increase would be nation wide so there is no advantage in jumping states

How much of an increase are you talking about?

If it's a few percent no big deal.

If you're talking about a 40% increase like Obama or a more than 100% increase like the unions then that's another thing.

Now let's use the 15 an hour figure for the sake of this post.

If everyone making less that 15 an hour was given a raise overnight do you not think prices for everything would go up?

So now that 15 an hour doesn't really give them that much more purchasing power does it?

But what happens is that everyone making more than 15 an hour will see their purchasing power decline.

So i guess the question is: Do more people make 15 an hour now than less than 15 an hour?

If so is a very slight real increase in purchasing power for those making less than 15 an hour worth the decrease in purchasing power of the higher number of people making more?

If every CEO in that nation give themselves a 5 million dollar bonus this year,do you think that will make prices on everything go up for everybody?

What a crock of shit.

Rich people can't have anymore bonuses or increase in their incomes.. That'll make the prices go up for everything.

I really don't care what a few CEOs make. It's miniscule when compared to the aggregate of all wages paid.

 

[Skull Pilot]

These people are saying that the union worker who wants a bigger share of the pie is Satan, but the Rich man who wants a bigger share of the same pie is God.

that's the bottom line.

There is no pie.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You got that right, chump of the greedy idiot rich:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Because people don't do something doesn't mean they can't.

Sorry but if the attitude of the masses is anything like this board it's no wonder people don't increase their net worth like people did 50 years ago

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

If they are paying the taxes then what the hell does the left have to complain about?

They are finding legal loopholes to get out of paying taxes. I disagree they pay the bulk of the taxes.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes

The top 10% of earners pay more than 70% of all income taxes. There aren't as many loopholes as you think

 

[edthecynic]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

If they are paying the taxes then what the hell does the left have to complain about?

They are finding legal loopholes to get out of paying taxes. I disagree they pay the bulk of the taxes.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes

The top 10% of earners pay more than 70% of all income taxes. There aren't as many loopholes as you think

Again, it is the top 10% of WAGE EARNERS, not the top 10% of wealth!
Learn the difference, take a lesson from your MessiahRushie Limbola:

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

 

[Boss]

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.

Wealth is not finite. However, when the wealthy hold the vast majority of the wealth, it reduces long term growth and begins to create greater poverty. This is the exact opposite of what conservatives believe. That does not mean we need a war against the wealthy, but if the wealthy do not begin to fairly redistribute income so that everyone is sharing in the wealth, then eventually those who become poor will revolt and take everything away from the wealthy. This has happened over and over again throughout history. The bottom line is that we do need some redistribution of wealth. That does not mean raping the wealthy or paying McDonald's employees the same as CEO's, but seeing to it that the wealthy are not the only ones benefiting from economic growth.

OK, first off, wealth is not income.
Second, anyone can get wealthy. Look at the richest people in America today. Compare that to 25 years ago. Lots of change going on.
So it isnt like the rich are hoarding wealth and sayng "nah nah you can't have any."
What's going on is there is little job creation and economic growth, leading to stagnation in the middle classes.
Thanks, Obama!

I can't recall the name of the speaker, but this guy I listened to once was telling about how his own personal "class" had changed numerous times during the course of his 30 years as a person. He began in a middle class family, was poor and qualified for welfare when in college, went from there to upper middle class, back to middle class, lost a job and was on food stamps and unemployment, back to middle class, upper middle, then to wealthy.

Every individual has a different history. No one in America is imprisoned to a specific "class" and this is the most insidious of all the myths perpetrated by the Left. We live in a constitutional free society where we have the freedom to pursue opportunities to be happy and prosperous. Those who have done that the best are who the Left is at war with.... Dumbest idea in the history of man.

 

[Boss]

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

If they are paying the taxes then what the hell does the left have to complain about?

They are finding legal loopholes to get out of paying taxes. I disagree they pay the bulk of the taxes.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes

The top 10% of earners pay more than 70% of all income taxes. There aren't as many loopholes as you think

Again, it is the top 10% of WAGE EARNERS, not the top 10% of wealth!
Learn the difference, take a lesson from your MessiahRushie Limbola:

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

This defines why it is such a stupid idea to lobby and yelp for a higher tax on upper incomes. You aren't touching the rich, you are blowing another hole in the hull of your own ship. You are making it harder to become one of the rich.

Let's understand this, if we don't understand anything else... Rich people do not need to earn income. It is arguably the best thing about being rich, it's simply something you are no longer burdened with. The more you tax high incomes, the more you roadblock people from becoming so rich they no longer need to earn income. Those who already have wealth, do not need to earn income.

They can gain revenue on their wealth by investing, and this is where you again shoot holes in your own ship by trying to punish wealthy investment. This results in less of it, which spells trouble for the "working people" who need jobs and incomes. Dumbest idea in human history, I'm telling you. We can go all the way back to cave man days, not a dumber idea to be found.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem with your argument is that you assume the only alternatives are something terrible like "Communism", when in fact we just need some regulations in place to prevent the wealthy from controlling nearly all of the wealth. There is nothing wrong with societies having super wealthy people. It is a problem if those people control more than 50% of all the wealth, and currently in the US, they control over 80%, leaving less than 20% to the remaining 90%. It really does not matter how things got this way. What matters is that it is a problem. When the numbers become so skewed, future wealth all goes to that top 10% and everyone else actually loses wealth as a percentage of total wealth. Eventually that top 10% will control nearly all wealth and everyone else will just be servants to the oligarchy, and when that happens, you get revolution.

The problem with my argument (as always) is that it's completely over the heads of so many morons. You can slap as much lipstick as you please on the Pig of Marxism, it's still what it is. More regulation preventing free market capitalists from doing what free market capitalists do, is detrimental to the poor and working class. It doesn't prevent the wealthy from controlling most of the wealth, as I explained before, that is a natural phenomenon created by free market capitalism. The wealthy always control most of the wealth, which is why you can't cite examples of systems where someone else controls most of the wealth. In non-free nations, the wealthy also control all political power and authority, media, health system, etc. In such systems, when it comes to redistribution of the wealth, you have what is a very real "trickle down" thing going on.

One problem we're having is understanding basic terms of the argument. Many of you keep talking about the wealthy, poor and middle class as if people simply are born into one or the other and never have any choice in the matter, they are stuck there until they die. The greatest thing about a vibrant free market capitalist system is, everyone has opportunity to become one of the wealthy who control most of the wealth. So this "enemy" you are at war with, is actually the goal and objective you should be aspiring to. As I said... Dumbest idea in the history of man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

These people are saying that the union worker who wants a bigger share of the pie is Satan, but the Rich man who wants a bigger share of the same pie is God.

that's the bottom line.

There is no pie.

Really? No business produces revenue?

lolol