War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Uncensored2008]

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

Your "point" is exceedingly ignorant, demonstrating you are bereft of even a basic grasp of finance or economics.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

That's called willful ignorance and hate, hater dupe No fire excepton Fox etc, and our toxic assets, approved by Booosh regulators, were sold around the world- and our bankers showed people how to get in on the fraudulent boom- Many countries couldn't throw 5 trillion at the meltdown like we did. And it's old Foxbots (68 year old avg) who are dying off lol. See ya!

 

[francoHFW]

• US one of few countries that doesn't mandate paid vacation ...
  www.bostonglobe.com/.../one...countries-that...paid-vaca...
  The Boston Globe
  
  Aug 14, 2014 - France, on the other hand, mandates 30 paid vacation days a year for all workers; Scandinavian countries offer 25. US citizens in Puerto Rico get three weeks off a year. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, and Sweden even require employers to pay vacationing workers extra to help with expenses.

• On holiday: Countries with the most vacation days
  www.usatoday.com/.../money/.../countries...vacation.../2400...
  USA Today
  
  Jun 8, 2013 - By law, every EU country has at least 4 weeks of paid vacation; Italy, .... are required by law to give employees a total of over one month off a ...

• U.S. The Only Advanced Economy That Does Not Require ...
  www.forbes.com/.../paid-time-off-forget-about-it-a-report-looks-a...
  Forbes
  
  Aug 13, 2013 - Almost 1-in-4 Americans do not receive any paid vacation or paid holidays, ... Most other rich countries have also established legal rights to paid holidays ... now works 160 hours (one month) more each year than in 1976.

 

[jillian]

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.

oh

 

[initforme]

Criticizing the rich is as bad as being critical of the working poor and begrudging them safety nets.

 

[francoHFW]

1. The US ranks last in every measure when it comes to family ...
   www.washingtonpost.com/.../global-view-how-u-s-po...
   The Washington Post
   
   Jun 23, 2014 - The United States is one of only three countries to offer no paid ... Other than child-care subsidies for the very poor, the issue has never come up again. ... in the family budget, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 

[francoHFW]

Criticizing the rich is as bad as being critical of the working poor and begrudging them safety nets.

We're only criticizing greedy idiot Pub rich.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

No, you never said there was. Because you're a partisan stupid hack. There is obviously such a war going on. Plugging your ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you isnt much of a response.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

He's not black.
There is no misrepresentation, except by Obama supporters.
Again you have yet to make a point in this thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great societies are born from class warfare.

That's the Soviet Union for you.
Of course it could be Detroit and be just as valid.
Class warfare brings poverty, ignorance, misery, and death wherever it goes.

 

[rightwinger]

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

No, you never said there was. Because you're a partisan stupid hack. There is obviously such a war going on. Plugging your ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you isnt much of a response.

War?

Kind of melodramatic aren't you?

Adjusting the tax structure on that 1% who have 34% of the wealth is far from a war. It's just sensible fiscal policy

 

[The Rabbi]

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

No, you never said there was. Because you're a partisan stupid hack. There is obviously such a war going on. Plugging your ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you isnt much of a response.

War?

Kind of melodramatic aren't you?

Adjusting the tax structure on that 1% who have 34% of the wealth is far from a war. It's just sensible fiscal policy

Kind of ill informed, aren't you?

 

[Boss]

That's called willful ignorance and hate, hater dupe No fire excepton Fox etc, and our toxic assets, approved by Booosh regulators, were sold around the world- and our bankers showed people how to get in on the fraudulent boom- Many countries couldn't throw 5 trillion at the meltdown like we did. And it's old Foxbots (68 year old avg) who are dying off lol. See ya!

Translation: Blah blah blah, bla-blah blah blah. Bla-bla blah blah blah!1!1 Fox, Koch, Boosh... Blah blah blah bla-bla blah!1!! Bankers, Fox, Bush, Cheney, blah bla-bla blah!1!! Pubs, Bush, Koch, Fox, blah bla-bla, blah blah blah and blah bla-bla blah!1!!

 

[The Rabbi]

That's called willful ignorance and hate, hater dupe No fire excepton Fox etc, and our toxic assets, approved by Booosh regulators, were sold around the world- and our bankers showed people how to get in on the fraudulent boom- Many countries couldn't throw 5 trillion at the meltdown like we did. And it's old Foxbots (68 year old avg) who are dying off lol. See ya!

Translation: Blah blah blah, bla-blah blah blah. Bla-bla blah blah blah!1!1 Fox, Koch, Boosh... Blah blah blah bla-bla blah!1!! Bankers, Fox, Bush, Cheney, blah bla-bla blah!1!! Pubs, Bush, Koch, Fox, blah bla-bla, blah blah blah and blah bla-bla blah!1!!

It's all they've got.

 

[Dad2three]

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

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

We've already explained to you in detail how top marginal income tax rates do not affect the wealthiest 1% because they don't earn income. We've explained why there are policies to encourage capital investment. I've even explained to you how it's not possible for you to ever confiscate the wealth of the rich... They are two moves ahead of you at all times and loads smarter than you'll ever hope to be.

The only thing worse than being dumb is being dumb AND stubborn!

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

Name one!

Carried interest: The carried interest loophole, which President Obama closes in his recent budget proposal, benefits wealthy hedge fund managers who take their pay from investors’ profits instead of through management fees, which makes the income subject to the lower capital gains rate than ordinary income rates.

The loophole applies to virtually no one, but it allows those who use it — wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives like Mitt Romney — to substantially lower their tax rates. Eliminating it would both make the tax code more equitable and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.

The loophole applies to virtually no one.....
Argument FAIL! ...Try again!

So you agree, they benefit ONLY those rich enough to buy Congress. Than

EVEN YOUR PREMISE WAS LAWS APPLY TO EVERYONE? Weird you can't use logic

 

[Boss]

Kind of melodramatic aren't you?

Adjusting the tax structure on that 1% who have 34% of the wealth is far from a war. It's just sensible fiscal policy

No. it's utterly stupid policy. You can't tax wealth. You can only tax income. Wealthy people do not have to earn incomes... they are already wealthy.

The only thing you can do is to put up roadblocks so that no one else can obtain wealth. This seems to be the approach you've chosen to take, and it's the dumbest idea ever in the history of man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a new paradigm in the US, where only the Rich can vote, where only the Rich can hold positions of power, and where all opposition to, criticism of, and disagreement with the Rich is punishable under the law,

how soon would that make life better for the rest of us?

 

[The Rabbi]

So a new paradigm in the US, where only the Rich can vote, where only the Rich can hold positions of power, and where all opposition to, criticism of, and disagreement with the Rich is punishable under the law,

how soon would that make life better for the rest of us?

It seemed to work pretty well in the early years of the Constitution. Because people didnt have to pander to ignorant assholes who couldn't hold a job and resented anyone with a bigger house. Like you.

 

[occupied]

The OP's premise of there being a war on the rich seems to involve using dissatisfaction with the unaccountable power of the super-rich as a political rallying point. By that standard the GOP has had wars on the poor, immigrants, Muslims, the uninsured, anti-war protesters, minority voters, the homeless, privacy advocates, anti-gun activists, environmental activists, unions, shit I could probably make a much lengthier list of designated scapegoats that have been used to get conservatives to the polls to vote but I think we all get the idea. By the OP's standard simply being against someone else's political/economic agenda is a war, explains why they are so damned nasty to people who disagree with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a new paradigm in the US, where only the Rich can vote, where only the Rich can hold positions of power, and where all opposition to, criticism of, and disagreement with the Rich is punishable under the law,

how soon would that make life better for the rest of us?

It seemed to work pretty well in the early years of the Constitution. Because people didnt have to pander to ignorant assholes who couldn't hold a job and resented anyone with a bigger house. Like you.

My home has been paid for for 40 years. How are you doing?