War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[rightwinger]

...that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

First of all, there are no policies which 'protect and enrich' wealthy people. That's a myth that you have been brainwashed into believing but it's not true. There are laws which encourage wealthy people to take risks with their wealth, and when that happens, others prosper and gain wealth. That is good for society.

Here's the detail you need to understand. Wealthy people do not need their wealth protected as long as there is a Constitution with a 4th Amendment. So any "policy" that you might think "protects" them is redundant. Their wealth is already protected.

They also don't need policies to enrich their wealth. Just the fact they have wealth enriches their wealth. If you wish to implement policies to prevent their wealth from being enriched, they will move their wealth to a country with more favorable policies.

This is what makes your war unwinnable and your enemy undefeatable.

It is without a doubt, the dumbest idea in the history of man.

your basic premise is false.

there is no war on the rich. that's just a facile whine from corporatists who prey on weak-minded right-wingers who vote against their own self-interest.

Idiot

Great speech by Warren
Thanks for posting

Still don't understand your obsession with roads and bridges

 

[The Rabbi]

...that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

First of all, there are no policies which 'protect and enrich' wealthy people. That's a myth that you have been brainwashed into believing but it's not true. There are laws which encourage wealthy people to take risks with their wealth, and when that happens, others prosper and gain wealth. That is good for society.

Here's the detail you need to understand. Wealthy people do not need their wealth protected as long as there is a Constitution with a 4th Amendment. So any "policy" that you might think "protects" them is redundant. Their wealth is already protected.

They also don't need policies to enrich their wealth. Just the fact they have wealth enriches their wealth. If you wish to implement policies to prevent their wealth from being enriched, they will move their wealth to a country with more favorable policies.

This is what makes your war unwinnable and your enemy undefeatable.

It is without a doubt, the dumbest idea in the history of man.

your basic premise is false.

there is no war on the rich. that's just a facile whine from corporatists who prey on weak-minded right-wingers who vote against their own self-interest.

Idiot

Great speech by Warren

Thanks for posting

But there's no war on the rich. Just remember that.

 

[rightwinger]

...that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

First of all, there are no policies which 'protect and enrich' wealthy people. That's a myth that you have been brainwashed into believing but it's not true. There are laws which encourage wealthy people to take risks with their wealth, and when that happens, others prosper and gain wealth. That is good for society.

Here's the detail you need to understand. Wealthy people do not need their wealth protected as long as there is a Constitution with a 4th Amendment. So any "policy" that you might think "protects" them is redundant. Their wealth is already protected.

They also don't need policies to enrich their wealth. Just the fact they have wealth enriches their wealth. If you wish to implement policies to prevent their wealth from being enriched, they will move their wealth to a country with more favorable policies.

This is what makes your war unwinnable and your enemy undefeatable.

It is without a doubt, the dumbest idea in the history of man.

your basic premise is false.

there is no war on the rich. that's just a facile whine from corporatists who prey on weak-minded right-wingers who vote against their own self-interest.

Idiot

Great speech by Warren

Thanks for posting

But there's no war on the rich. Just remember that.

I never said there was

Adjusting tax codes is not "war" silly girl

 

[JoeNormal]

But there's no war on the rich. Just remember that.

Go see 'Fury'. It's in theaters now. THAT'S war.

 

[jillian]

...that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

First of all, there are no policies which 'protect and enrich' wealthy people. That's a myth that you have been brainwashed into believing but it's not true. There are laws which encourage wealthy people to take risks with their wealth, and when that happens, others prosper and gain wealth. That is good for society.

Here's the detail you need to understand. Wealthy people do not need their wealth protected as long as there is a Constitution with a 4th Amendment. So any "policy" that you might think "protects" them is redundant. Their wealth is already protected.

They also don't need policies to enrich their wealth. Just the fact they have wealth enriches their wealth. If you wish to implement policies to prevent their wealth from being enriched, they will move their wealth to a country with more favorable policies.

This is what makes your war unwinnable and your enemy undefeatable.

It is without a doubt, the dumbest idea in the history of man.

your basic premise is false.

there is no war on the rich. that's just a facile whine from corporatists who prey on weak-minded right-wingers who vote against their own self-interest.

Idiot

Great speech by Warren

Thanks for posting

But there's no war on the rich. Just remember that.

yes, i know the obama deranged love to misrepresent things.

it's ok... we've had six years of it.

and the black guy is still president.

 

[Mr Natural]

There is no war on the rich.

If there is a war on any economic group in this country, it's the middle class.

Yes, this seems to be a common retort. Kind of like how the Korean War wasn't really a war but a conflict... police action... anything other than a "WAR!"

The Left is fully engaged in an all out assault on the wealthy in America. This is apparent in almost every line of left-wing political rhetoric. Every left-wing democrat policy, every argument, every debate, is couched in the same anti-wealthy or anti-capitalist rhetoric.Relentless, non-stop sorties on every forum and blog, in every news report, in every op-ed by every left-winger in America. But it's not a "war?"

The middle class are declining. Do you know where they are going? Let's have a look...
View attachment 33174 Now tell me, where are the middle class going? They aren't joining the ranks of the poor because the poor are declining too. Here's a hint: look at what group is rising.

On what planet is $75,000 a year "upper income"?

 

[Boss]

Pubs who cut funding for training, make college loans more expensive duh. Make us the only modern country without at least a month paid vacation after a year, paid parental leave, good cheap day care, and tax the poor as much or more %wise as the rich, chump of the greedy idiot rich.

What franco means by "modern country" is the few Western European countries who adopted liberal policies and are now besieged by protesters burning cities down because the money has run out and they have discovered they can't afford to fund Utopia.

All the "stuff" you listed costs money to provide. Some of it isn't cheap. It all has to be paid for by someone, and at the base fundamental level, that is the consumer or taxpayer. There is no other source. There is no incentive for the rich to pay for your stuff, it doesn't enrich their wealth or help them in any way.

Things like "good cheap child care" are only possible through a vibrant free market capitalist system. You should encourage supply in any way possible, this will overwhelm demand and create lower price. The same applies to education and training. Encourage more supply in any way possible. The more free market capitalist supply you have, the lower the price will be for the consumer. Federal mandates and directives are of no use, they serve to remove the mechanism of free market capitalism and competition, and ultimately make things more expensive.

 

[hazlnut]

Great societies are born from class warfare.

 

[Boss]

Deductions for vacation homes: The mortgage interest tax deduction, aimed at promoting home ownership, allows homeowners to deduct interest paid on their second home as well. That obviously benefits the wealthy, since they are more likely to have second homes, but it gets worse: the deduction can also apply to large yachts that have sleeping spaces, giving a tax break to wealthy boat owners

5 Ways Our Tax Code Benefits the Rich and Screws Everyone Else Alternet

...allows homeowners to deduct interest paid...
Argument FAIL ....AGAIN!

Let's clarify what you are supposed to be showing me.. A policy or law that specifically benefits only the wealthy and does not apply to anyone else. So far, you've not presented that. You are presenting examples of policies which might favor some wealthy people... but hell, the 4th Amendment might also favor some wealthy people.

 

[Toro]

Posting it another time doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're confusing different concepts.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is one of the most basic concepts in all of economics. How wealth is distributed within society is another issue.

If wealth was a zero-sum game, we would - literally - still have living standards of the 17th century. Last time I checked, we didn't have iPhones and airplanes in the 17th century.

Got it, as usual you ignore the premise and create your own and argue from there. Shocking

he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You clearly don't understand the basic concepts.

what concepts would that be?

that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

i'm pretty sure if we start there, we can find far more places for agreement than i'm seeing in this thread

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

and yet you're not acknowledging my obvious and correct point.

Since you are the one who decided to reply to me, your point is irrelevant to the incorrect assertion that wealth is a zero-sum game.

 

[francoHFW]

Pubs who cut funding for training, make college loans more expensive duh. Make us the only modern country without at least a month paid vacation after a year, paid parental leave, good cheap day care, and tax the poor as much or more %wise as the rich, chump of the greedy idiot rich.

What franco means by "modern country" is the few Western European countries who adopted liberal policies and are now besieged by protesters burning cities down because the money has run out and they have discovered they can't afford to fund Utopia.

All the "stuff" you listed costs money to provide. Some of it isn't cheap. It all has to be paid for by someone, and at the base fundamental level, that is the consumer or taxpayer. There is no other source. There is no incentive for the rich to pay for your stuff, it doesn't enrich their wealth or help them in any way.

Things like "good cheap child care" are only possible through a vibrant free market capitalist system. You should encourage supply in any way possible, this will overwhelm demand and create lower price. The same applies to education and training. Encourage more supply in any way possible. The more free market capitalist supply you have, the lower the price will be for the consumer. Federal mandates and directives are of no use, they serve to remove the mechanism of free market capitalism and competition, and ultimately make things more expensive.

ACTUALLY- We and New Guinea are the only ones without parental leave, and EVERY EU country, Aus, NZ, Japan, Korea, many in S. America all have those things. And what countries are on fire lol? BTW, they had great economies until Pubs wrecked the world, AGAIN. You're a typical brainwashed GOP drone. And we need DEMAND after 30 years of voodoo. See sig pp 1.

 

[Boss]

There is no war on the rich.

If there is a war on any economic group in this country, it's the middle class.

Yes, this seems to be a common retort. Kind of like how the Korean War wasn't really a war but a conflict... police action... anything other than a "WAR!"

The Left is fully engaged in an all out assault on the wealthy in America. This is apparent in almost every line of left-wing political rhetoric. Every left-wing democrat policy, every argument, every debate, is couched in the same anti-wealthy or anti-capitalist rhetoric.Relentless, non-stop sorties on every forum and blog, in every news report, in every op-ed by every left-winger in America. But it's not a "war?"

The middle class are declining. Do you know where they are going? Let's have a look...
View attachment 33174 Now tell me, where are the middle class going? They aren't joining the ranks of the poor because the poor are declining too. Here's a hint: look at what group is rising.

On what planet is $75,000 a year "upper income"?

On THIS planet... in a country known as the United States, where the average income is $51,939.

 

[Toro]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Posting it another time doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're confusing different concepts.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is one of the most basic concepts in all of economics. How wealth is distributed within society is another issue.

If wealth was a zero-sum game, we would - literally - still have living standards of the 17th century. Last time I checked, we didn't have iPhones and airplanes in the 17th century.

Got it, as usual you ignore the premise and create your own and argue from there. Shocking

he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You clearly don't understand the basic concepts.

And you clearly can't be honest

I can honestly say that someone who doesn't understand the difference between wealth and wealth distribution has little understanding of basic economics, no matter how much of a C&P Master you may be.

 

[francoHFW]

See if you can spot the Reaganism effect, dingbats. People ran out of their savings by 2007...

he 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

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect more wealth?

Why do you continue telling lies that have been refuted thousands of times?

"only helping the 1%"

What a fucking moron.

 

[francoHFW]

There is no war on the rich.

If there is a war on any economic group in this country, it's the middle class.

Yes, this seems to be a common retort. Kind of like how the Korean War wasn't really a war but a conflict... police action... anything other than a "WAR!"

The Left is fully engaged in an all out assault on the wealthy in America. This is apparent in almost every line of left-wing political rhetoric. Every left-wing democrat policy, every argument, every debate, is couched in the same anti-wealthy or anti-capitalist rhetoric.Relentless, non-stop sorties on every forum and blog, in every news report, in every op-ed by every left-winger in America. But it's not a "war?"

The middle class are declining. Do you know where they are going? Let's have a look...
View attachment 33174 Now tell me, where are the middle class going? They aren't joining the ranks of the poor because the poor are declining too. Here's a hint: look at what group is rising.

On what planet is $75,000 a year "upper income"?

On THIS planet... in a country known as the United States, where the average income is $51,939.

The rich make huge piles, and the median keeps going down. Brainwashed functional idiot, average means nothing when 95% of the gains go to the 1%.

 

[Boss]

ACTUALLY- We and New Guinea are the only ones without parental leave, and EVERY EU country, Aus, NZ, Japan, Korea, many in S. America all have those things.

No they don't.

And what countries are on fire lol?

Greece, Spain, Portugal, don't you watch the news?

BTW, they had great economies until Pubs wrecked the world, AGAIN.

Last I checked, Republicans do not set the policies in Western European countries.

You're a typical brainwashed GOP drone. And we need DEMAND after 30 years of voodoo. See sig pp 1.

You're the one talking like a lunatic, not me. No, what we NEED is to run you motherfuckers out of our country in fear for your life. But that won't happen anytime soon. I figure we'll have to tolerate your stupid asses for another generation or two, then they will have to declare a war on you again to free the world from your tyranny.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, that transcontinental railroad to California did help the 1% gain more wealth

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

And it didn't help anyone else, did it shitflinger?

 

[Uncensored2008]

you don't sound like you went to school, wabbit

IRONY ALERT

 

[Boss]

The rich make huge piles, and the median keeps going down. Brainwashed functional idiot, average means nothing when 95% of the gains go to the 1%.

I just posted the graph from the US Census Bureau. The middle are moving UP not down. The number of wealthy are increasing as more and more from the middle are joining them. The poor are also decreasing, more and more of them are joining the middle.

YOU are the one who has been brainwashed. What's worse is, you've been brainwashed with obsolete 19th century Marxist rhetoric that doesn't even apply to a free market capitalist system. What's worse than that is, it's the very same rhetoric which prompted Mao's People's Revolution in China, which led to over 70 million deaths.

DUMBEST idea in the history of man!