War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Boss]

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

So you agree, they benefit ONLY those rich enough to buy Congress.
No, I showed you where your very own resource totally refuted that argument. Thus far, there have been ZERO examples given of a law or policy which ONLY affects the wealthy and does not apply to any other American. That was your claim, that was the challenge, and you haven't produced an example.

Now, let me explain why you're having trouble here... it's called the 14th Amendment. You see, we do not pass laws in America which only apply to certain groups. All of the laws we pass apply to all Americans. There is not a special set of laws which only apply to wealthy people, they don't have their own special tax code, and that never has been or will be the case as long as there is a 14th Amendment and Constitution.

 

[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.

So your argument is for a reversion to a time when only the wealthy elite could vote?

Seriously?

 

[Boss]

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.

Why occutard, I haven't even begun getting nasty with you, whatever are you talking about?

My OP already assumes most people are not retarded and can comprehend the message from the left is certainly a "war on the wealthy." It totally doesn't consider brain-dead morons who want to whine there is no war, like complete idiots. From there, the OP explains why this war is the "Dumbest Idea in Human History."

Now, my hopes for this thread was centered more on a discussion of possible worse ideas in human history, but so far, none have been offered. This remains the worst idea, and I totally understand why you wish to run away from the idea as fast as you possibly can. I wouldn't want to take credit for the worst idea in human history either.

 

[Discombobulated]

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

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

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

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

 

[Boss]

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

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

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

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

Why occutard, I haven't even begun getting nasty with you, whatever are you talking about?

My OP already assumes most people are not retarded and can comprehend the message from the left is certainly a "war on the wealthy." It totally doesn't consider brain-dead morons who want to whine there is no war, like complete idiots. From there, the OP explains why this war is the "Dumbest Idea in Human History."

Now, my hopes for this thread was centered more on a discussion of possible worse ideas in human history, but so far, none have been offered. This remains the worst idea, and I totally understand why you wish to run away from the idea as fast as you possibly can. I wouldn't want to take credit for the worst idea in human history either.

The OP seems to suggest that we can either accept unrestricted free market capitalism or embrace communism. I wonder if there could be a reasonable position somewhere in between?

 

[Discombobulated]

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

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

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

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

Are you serious or what?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

 

[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.

So your argument is for a reversion to a time when only the wealthy elite could vote?

Seriously?

No. As usual you can't read.
You said it would be unprecedented. But it isnt. That's how the country originally ran. Just pointing to yet another example of your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[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.

So your argument is for a reversion to a time when only the wealthy elite could vote?

Seriously?

No. As usual you can't read.
You said it would be unprecedented. But it isnt. That's how the country originally ran. Just pointing to yet another example of your ignorance and stupidity.

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[Dad2three]

Top Economists: Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

I agree!

That crap has only been debunked about a hundred times on here.
Tax rates are only one part of the equation. Bring back all the deductions as well.

Well when the top rate was 90% the lowest rate was 20% and there was no EITC, no tuition deduction, etc etc

so people ought to be careful what they wish for when they want the good old days of a 90% bracket back

\
Yeah, they have it HORRIBLE today, those 'job creators'

 

[Dad2three]

and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.

LMFAOooo.... So, it saves $2.1 billion per year?

That should just about cover Obama's green fees!

So you REALLY don't want ONE law that benefits the 'job creators' after all. You ae a tool Bubba

 

[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.

So your argument is for a reversion to a time when only the wealthy elite could vote?

Seriously?

No. As usual you can't read.
You said it would be unprecedented. But it isnt. That's how the country originally ran. Just pointing to yet another example of your ignorance and stupidity.

Then why did you bring it up?

That would be you bringing it up with your "new paradigm" idiocy.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Yeah, it's Europe's society that are causing their problems, NOT THE FREE MARKET BANKSTERS WHO RAN A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST ON THEM! *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

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.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

So poor own SECOND homes Bubba? And you ignored the carried interest rule that ONLY benefits the VERY, VERY richest of the rich!


You are just another right wing douche

 

[Boss]

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.

Why occutard, I haven't even begun getting nasty with you, whatever are you talking about?

My OP already assumes most people are not retarded and can comprehend the message from the left is certainly a "war on the wealthy." It totally doesn't consider brain-dead morons who want to whine there is no war, like complete idiots. From there, the OP explains why this war is the "Dumbest Idea in Human History."

Now, my hopes for this thread was centered more on a discussion of possible worse ideas in human history, but so far, none have been offered. This remains the worst idea, and I totally understand why you wish to run away from the idea as fast as you possibly can. I wouldn't want to take credit for the worst idea in human history either.

The OP seems to suggest that we can either accept unrestricted free market capitalism or embrace communism. I wonder if there could be a reasonable position somewhere in between?

Well no, the OP suggests no such thing. In fact, because of the Constitution, we have never had unrestricted free market capitalism in America. But now, what history has shown us is, the least restricted free market capitalism generates the most wealth. While this has enabled the formulation of your statistics and graphs regarding the wealthiest people naturally controlling most of the wealth, it has also enabled the creation of more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any system ever imagined or tried. It turned a fledgling upstart nation of 240 years ago, into the greatest world superpower ever known, far surpassing nations which have existed centuries longer.

 

[francoHFW]

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!!

Don't like facts much, do you, lol? Most other countries have paid leave, great vacation, better day care, voodoo has wrecked the middle class (no money to spend)- PROVED last page. And of course Booosh and his financial cronies wrecked the world. Everything Fox and the New BS GOP is bs, hater dupe.

 

[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.

Why occutard, I haven't even begun getting nasty with you, whatever are you talking about?

My OP already assumes most people are not retarded and can comprehend the message from the left is certainly a "war on the wealthy." It totally doesn't consider brain-dead morons who want to whine there is no war, like complete idiots. From there, the OP explains why this war is the "Dumbest Idea in Human History."

Now, my hopes for this thread was centered more on a discussion of possible worse ideas in human history, but so far, none have been offered. This remains the worst idea, and I totally understand why you wish to run away from the idea as fast as you possibly can. I wouldn't want to take credit for the worst idea in human history either.

If all you want is a worse idea it has been accepting the claims by a ruling aristocracy that they are entitled to to their power. All the kings, emperors, popes, warlords, slave owners, etc. were convinced and mostly convinced their subjects that their wealth entitled them to real legally sanctioned power.

Our founders rejected the idea that established wealth naturally entitled the wealth holder to political power and that the rabble should just submit. Your premise that criticizing or taxing the rich makes them punish us for our impertinence is blasphemy against the ideals this country was founded on, and rejecting your type of pandering to the wealthy is the best idea that ever was.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You LIE. Shocking. The premises, as I've outlined to you, was

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

JUST like my link, and my posting showed.

Lying right winger? I'm shocked