War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Uncensored2008]

Did the OP include any data to back up it's claim?

Nope.

Statist, do you agree with Jillian and the other leftist lowbrows in this thread that wealth is finite, that it is not created, merely distributed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never said anything about confiscating assets.

Is that too bold to advocate openly?

I said why does our government continue economic policies that aid the 1% when it is obvious they don't need it?

Ignoring the question of whether your claim is true (it isn't), is "need" the basis of wealth? Does material wealth gravitate toward need, rather than production?

The 1% gain wealth because they create it - is it your claim that the wealth would flee from them in favor of "need" if the government would just stop interfering?

 

[rightwinger]

I never said anything about confiscating assets.

Is that too bold to advocate openly?

I said why does our government continue economic policies that aid the 1% when it is obvious they don't need it?

Ignoring the question of whether your claim is true (it isn't), is "need" the basis of wealth? Does material wealth gravitate toward need, rather than production?

The 1% gain wealth because they create it - is it your claim that the wealth would flee from them in favor of "need" if the government would just stop interfering?

You conveniently avoid the question

Our government has instituted policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%. Those policies were supposed to result in a rising economic tide and more jobs.

It didn't happen...So why should we continue those failed policies?

 

[Barb]

The difference between the idea that wealth is limited, the idea that companies have a defined market share, the idea that there are limits to growth worldwide. The idea that natural resoures are finite.

Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.

Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?

Because we've outsourced our industrial base.

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

There's US, us, and hello, here we are.

 

[JoeNormal]

Did you actually even look at the link I provided or are you under the mistaken impression that you know what it says? The underlying limiting factor in wealth generation is resource depletion.

Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?

Because we've outsourced our industrial base.

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

There's US, us, and hello, here we are.

That seems to be the goal of the 'wealth producers' doesn't it.

 

[Barb]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

income i snot wealth.

the only wealth that matters is your wealth (net worth) and none of you have been able to tell me what rich greedy guy is stopping you from increasing your wealth. Or how one person's increase in net worth decreases yours.

Poorly paid people dealing with rising costs coupled with the lower buying power of what dollars they actually make have to liquidate their wealth to keep paying the bills that keep rising, leaving them bereft of that wealth. And it isn't "one person," it is a collusion, a cabal of "people" that (rather than who, no matter what the latest, rather than greatest, Supremes decided on the subject of personhood) keep driving costs higher and paychecks lower. This isn't rocket science, and you know damned well what you're supporting, and why.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You conveniently avoid the question

You postulated a falsehood. You of the Khmer Rouge think that is really clever. I don't - so as I stated in my reply, such fallacies are discarded and ignored.

Our government has instituted policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%. Those policies were supposed to result in a rising economic tide and more jobs.

A bold statement presented as fact, which is in fact not fact.

By "policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%" you mean "lowered tax rates from what they once were." Your objection is that the government does not take as much wealth by force as you would like them to. I suppose that allowing a person to keep what they earned does encourage growth, but this is hardly limited to the top 1%.

Policies that would concern me more would those which mandate a person buy a product from a well connected vendor or face a visit from the IRS.

Funny, you SUPPORT the open cronyism of that scheme - not that I expect reason or consistency from you.

It didn't happen...So why should we continue those failed policies?

So, our economy is in the same shape as it was in 2009?

Keep mindlessly flinging that shit - you're winning hearts and minds.

 

[Dad2three]

You conveniently avoid the question

You postulated a falsehood. You of the Khmer Rouge think that is really clever. I don't - so as I stated in my reply, such fallacies are discarded and ignored.

Our government has instituted policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%. Those policies were supposed to result in a rising economic tide and more jobs.

A bold statement presented as fact, which is in fact not fact.

By "policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%" you mean "lowered tax rates from what they once were." Your objection is that the government does not take as much wealth by force as you would like them to. I suppose that allowing a person to keep what they earned does encourage growth, but this is hardly limited to the top 1%.

Policies that would concern me more would those which mandate a person buy a product from a well connected vendor or face a visit from the IRS.

Funny, you SUPPORT the open cronyism of that scheme - not that I expect reason or consistency from you.

It didn't happen...So why should we continue those failed policies?

So, our economy is in the same shape as it was in 2009?

Keep mindlessly flinging that shit - you're winning hearts and minds.

 

[Barb]

Then why is this country wealthier than it was 40 years ago despite using those resources?

Because we've outsourced our industrial base.

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

There's US, us, and hello, here we are.

That seems to be the goal of the 'wealth producers' doesn't it.

Well, sure. An able and educated populace with a little cushion to back them up in hard times, credit standing to create better times, and political clout in these times would not be so vulnerable to being fleeced. The plan is to let us keep none of that, not even an extra 35 a month for a life insurance plan that might bubble wrap the kids from becoming their slaves in the "economy" they're busy creating.

 

[rightwinger]

You conveniently avoid the question

You postulated a falsehood. You of the Khmer Rouge think that is really clever. I don't - so as I stated in my reply, such fallacies are discarded and ignored.

Our government has instituted policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%. Those policies were supposed to result in a rising economic tide and more jobs.

A bold statement presented as fact, which is in fact not fact.

By "policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%" you mean "lowered tax rates from what they once were." Your objection is that the government does not take as much wealth by force as you would like them to. I suppose that allowing a person to keep what they earned does encourage growth, but this is hardly limited to the top 1%.

Policies that would concern me more would those which mandate a person buy a product from a well connected vendor or face a visit from the IRS.

Funny, you SUPPORT the open cronyism of that scheme - not that I expect reason or consistency from you.

It didn't happen...So why should we continue those failed policies?

So, our economy is in the same shape as it was in 2009?

Keep mindlessly flinging that shit - you're winning hearts and minds.

I always know I have won the argument when you start ranting about Khmer Rouge

 

[edthecynic]

Dumbocrats love simple phrases like "War on da Wimmen!" "Hope and Change"

Yeah, why cant they be like DittoTards and love complicated phrases like "War on Christmas" "War on the Rich" "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," "9,9,9 for Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," "I Hope He Fails," and "Drill Baby, Drill."

 

[Uncensored2008]

I always know I have won the argument when you start ranting about Khmer Rouge

Yes, you've won Dumb2three to you side.

What an erudite display of logic and reason, shitflinger.

 

[MaxGrit]

You conveniently avoid the question

You postulated a falsehood. You of the Khmer Rouge think that is really clever. I don't - so as I stated in my reply, such fallacies are discarded and ignored.

Our government has instituted policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%. Those policies were supposed to result in a rising economic tide and more jobs.

A bold statement presented as fact, which is in fact not fact.

By "policies to encourage the growth of wealth for the 1%" you mean "lowered tax rates from what they once were." Your objection is that the government does not take as much wealth by force as you would like them to. I suppose that allowing a person to keep what they earned does encourage growth, but this is hardly limited to the top 1%.

Policies that would concern me more would those which mandate a person buy a product from a well connected vendor or face a visit from the IRS.

Funny, you SUPPORT the open cronyism of that scheme - not that I expect reason or consistency from you.

It didn't happen...So why should we continue those failed policies?

So, our economy is in the same shape as it was in 2009?

Keep mindlessly flinging that shit - you're winning hearts and minds.

I always know I have won the argument when you start ranting about Khmer Rouge

I know you are an idiot.

 

[jillian]

to add to that Skull Pilot, you can't have people gaining wealth when their opportunities become limited by policies designed only to help that top 1%.

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

 

[jillian]

I always know I have won the argument when you start ranting about Khmer Rouge

Yes, you've won Dumb2three to you side.

What an erudite display of logic and reason, shitflinger.

poor wackadoodle.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know you are an idiot.

Shitflinger cannot debate any point. He cannot carry on a conversation or engage in dialogue. He spews what he imagines to be clever riposte from ThinkProgress and the other leftist hate sites, then when challenged crawls back into the sewers from whence he came.

He is a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey who shrieks with rage. But never expect reason or rational discourse from him - you will get none.

 

[jillian]

That income is not wealth you idiot.

And one person's income, rise or fall in net worth has absofuckinglutely no effect on yours.

you know whats amusing about zeke's little game. He himself proves his own lie.

I have had a growing income every year since one of My employers back in 2010 closed their doors.

All during that time, the rich have been getting richer (Just refer to any progressive's numerous charts on the subject) and yet....How can that be?

If the rich add one more dollar, or lets say they add 300 million more dollars every year to their wealth (A function of wages and earnings the 300 million is the number of people in the USA), then that must mean for each year they earned this, I lost a dollar.

Yet here I am, 4 years later and I've recovered all the wages I lost and actually increased My salary by 12%....

The horror.....the horror!

you should probably educate yourself with something other than the randian idiots at mises and faux news

Which is why I never consider you seriously. I am none of that. Not surprised you missed that.

a hack like you doesn't really have the comprehension to engage in actual discussion.

I reiterate my previous comment.

now let's hear you say "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

poor wackadoodle.

Tell us again how wealth is a finite pool which never expands; I find it

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually everyone would lose 20% of their wealth.
Because you just don't get how this works, do you?

Math and the Rabbi are not good friends

Economics and you are like vampires and garlic.

Maybe this will help you

Google

Maybe this will help you. Of course you'd ahve to have the intelligence to read and understand the book. Which means I guess you could use it as a paper weight.
Basic Economics 2nd Edition A Citizen s Guide to the Economy Thomas Sowell Brian Emerson 9780786168798 Amazon.com Books

Here ya go Rabbi...maybe this will help you explain your economic theories

Cartoons are way more your speed for understanding complex issues than books. That's true.

 

[rightwinger]

Still waiting Rabbi...

If the War on the Rich is such a "Dumb" idea

What would happen if the 1% were to lose 2 tenths of a percent of their wealth and the 40% were to gain 2 tenths of a percent in wealth (double their wealth)

Would the world come to an end?

Actually everyone would lose 20% of their wealth.
Because you just don't get how this works, do you?

Still waiting Rabbi...

Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?