War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Discombobulated]

Plenty more where these came from.

 

[Boss]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

View attachment 33386

Take a look at this graph and tell me what you think is happening to the so-called "middle class" families? It looks to me like the "middle class" is becoming the new rich. They aren't becoming the poor because the poor are also declining. The rich are getting richer, but so are the middle class and poor. Of course... "we" have to stop all this getting rich stuff! Too much of that going on these days! Marxism can only be properly promoted when people are hopelessly mired in poverty with no seeming way out. We have to keep telling people how worthless they are and how they can't help their condition and they need government to fix their situation. Repeat it over and over, pound it into their stubborn heads! If they refuse to believe it, ridicule them and call them stupid, insinuate they don't care about the poor and needy, brow-beat them and make them feel guilty for success. That's how Alinsky says it's done.

Now I know you're not being serious.

This makes sense since the number of "top 1%" are growing and the number of "21-99%" is declining. Again... we gotta stop this getting rich stuff, it's cramping your style!

 

[Discombobulated]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

View attachment 33386

Take a look at this graph and tell me what you think is happening to the so-called "middle class" families? It looks to me like the "middle class" is becoming the new rich. They aren't becoming the poor because the poor are also declining. The rich are getting richer, but so are the middle class and poor. Of course... "we" have to stop all this getting rich stuff! Too much of that going on these days! Marxism can only be properly promoted when people are hopelessly mired in poverty with no seeming way out. We have to keep telling people how worthless they are and how they can't help their condition and they need government to fix their situation. Repeat it over and over, pound it into their stubborn heads! If they refuse to believe it, ridicule them and call them stupid, insinuate they don't care about the poor and needy, brow-beat them and make them feel guilty for success. That's how Alinsky says it's done.

Now I know you're not being serious.

This makes sense since the number of "top 1%" are growing and the number of "21-99%" is declining. Again... we gotta stop this getting rich stuff, it's cramping your style!

If you want to continue denying the obvious fact of a declining and shrinking middle class then you really can't be taken seriously.

 

[Boss]

All your graphs are predicated on the notion that "middle class" and "wealthy" remain entrapped in their class and never escape. As we see from MY graph (which is from the US Census Bureau), the upper-income people are growing in number while the middle and poor are declining.

Your graphs show that your problem is, too many people are leaving the middle class to become wealthy and make a lot of money, and we can't have that. How dare people to be successful!

 

[Boss]

If you want to continue denying the obvious fact of a declining and shrinking middle class then you really can't be taken seriously.

I didn't deny it. I showed you the graph from the US Census Bureau showing where the declining and shrinking middle class are going. You are the one who wants to deny the obvious facts.

 

[Boss]

Look no further than Romneycare for your model.

Wow... So the democrats adopted a republican's plan and rammed that down our throats without any republican support whatsoever, promising it would be great once it was passed? Why didn't they ram through a democrat's plan instead? Since they had ZERO republican support, that would have made better sense. Like I said, you guys should seriously think about electing smarter people.

 

[The Rabbi]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

Actually the correlation is between number of Democrats in office and a declining economy.

 

[RKMBrown]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

View attachment 33386

Take a look at this graph and tell me what you think is happening to the so-called "middle class" families? It looks to me like the "middle class" is becoming the new rich. They aren't becoming the poor because the poor are also declining. The rich are getting richer, but so are the middle class and poor. Of course... "we" have to stop all this getting rich stuff! Too much of that going on these days! Marxism can only be properly promoted when people are hopelessly mired in poverty with no seeming way out. We have to keep telling people how worthless they are and how they can't help their condition and they need government to fix their situation. Repeat it over and over, pound it into their stubborn heads! If they refuse to believe it, ridicule them and call them stupid, insinuate they don't care about the poor and needy, brow-beat them and make them feel guilty for success. That's how Alinsky says it's done.

Easy... we went from one income families to two income families. FYI counting people with income isn't the same as counting people that don't have income. This chart is only for people with income. What's missing is the % of people that have no income.

 

[Andylusion]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

First off... that's totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what benefits are given out, to determine if a tax is regressive.
Regressive tax - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases."

Social Security, and Medicare, are both regressive taxes. Benefits are irrelevant to determining whether the tax fits the definition of regressive or not.

Bottom line: It is a regressive tax. You can either accept that, or prove you are disqualified from this discussion.

Now as for benefits to tax ratio, I will in fact concede to you, that at the absolute lowest end of the income spectrum, people get out, more than they put in.

However, I think you need to realize just how few fit that group.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...dicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-over-a-Lifetime.pdf

A single Male, Earning $45K a year, turning 65 in the year 2015:
Paid in Taxes: $337K

Will collect in benefits: $287K
Female Benefits: $314K (women tend to live longer)

That's significantly less in my book. Which means well more than 50% of the country, is collecting less than they paid in taxes.

Yet it's true that if you earn $20K for your entire life, you will collect far more in benefits, than you paid in taxes.

However, you seems to be missing our point.

If I earn $20,000 a year, until I retire, for doing that I get $12,000 a year in benefits. So taxes keep me broke until I retire, and then I'm even more broke until I die.

Do you think people who live on $12,000 a year in Social Security benefits, are sitting there going "Man this is great! I'm getting back more than I paid in!" while they live in a roach apartment with a beat up 20 year old car to get around in? I did meals on wheels to exactly these people. They are the most pitiful sight you could see.

6.5% of $20,000 a year, is $1,300 a year in taxes.
If you take that $108 a month, and put it into a growth stock mutual fund, over that same time frame of age 20 to age 67, you would end up with..... $1.2 Million dollars.

But thanks to you... those people have $12,000 a year. Now that's a good trade off.

On top of that.....

What you miss, is what advancement those people may have made, had they kept their own money.

Back in the year 1999-2000, I made some really terrible financial mistakes. I spent literally 6 years of my life, paying off loans and debts I had built up in 2 years. In 2006, I paid off nearly all of my debt, and closed out all debts, all credit cards, and all loans of any kind in 2008.

But most of it I paid off in 2006. When I got my account closed letter, and paid-in-full notices in 2006, I tallied up, and found that I had paid off $20,000 worth of debt and loans by 2006.

I received from the Social Security administration, that I had also paid into Social Security $23,000 in taxes.

If *I* had been able to keep *MY* own money, I would NOT have had to spend 6 years of my life working for the bank.

Millions of low wage earners could use that money to.... fix their cars, or repair their homes. Maybe they could have paid for some education, or training. Maybe they could have used the money to start a new business.

Seriously, during that 6 years, I did NOTHING. I bought NOTHING. I didn't even buy new clothes. I wish I had pictures of the rags that I wore during that time. The ripped shirts and torn pants, and so on.

So the Social Security tax, holds people down while they are working, so they can live impoverished when they retire?

And lastly.....

All the calculations, all the estimates, all the graphs and charts, all assume that people sit there and collect their meager $12K a year.

Problem is.... many don't. Most of the retired people, don't just sit on their butts, collecting impoverishment benefits. Most go back to work, because they can't possibly survive on so little.

But when they go to work..... they lose their benefits.

If I reach 67, I am certainly not going to live off of $12K a year. That's not going to happen. I'll keep working.

But then I'll lose my benefits.

So how much benefits will I collect over my taxes paid in, if I keep work? None... in fact, if I keep working, I'll be paying even more taxes into the system, for the benefits I don't receive.

All of that BULL CRAP, that the lowest income people will collect more than they paid in, all fo that is tossed out the window if they keep working at retirement age.

Bottom line..... Socialist Insecurity, is a terrible terrible program that ruins everyone.

And by the way...... It *IS* going broke. The retirement age will have to be raised, and taxes will have to be increased. Sooner, or later, the system will have to be changed, and it will make the already miserable benefit-to-tax ratio, far worse.

 

[Andylusion]

Plenty more where these came from.

Of course. The highest income range is always going to increase, as long as the economy grows.

But the lowest income...... is always...... ZERO. It's impossible to have the lowest income be millions of dollars... because the lowest income starting range.... is always.... ZERO.

It's called math dude. Math doesn't twist away into oblivion, just because you have an ideology. Shocking I know.

 

[Contumacious]

Unfortunate that the Affordable Care Act contains so many Republican ideas....

When Obamacare was rammed through Congress, people laughed when I predicted it would be less than 10 years before Democrats blamed the failure of it on Republicans. It didn't take that long, did it?

Obama Hellcare was NOT rammed through Congress

It was rammed through the Senate on a snowy Xmas eve at 2 AM.

The House never voted on the measure.


Harry Reid (D-USSR) used a parliamentarian trick to introduce a massive welfare measure into law.

And fatherofsixteen will stay claim that the Constitution (1787) is still relevant.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

First off... that's totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what benefits are given out, to determine if a tax is regressive.
Regressive tax - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases."

Social Security, and Medicare, are both regressive taxes. Benefits are irrelevant to determining whether the tax fits the definition of regressive or not.

Bottom line: It is a regressive tax. You can either accept that, or prove you are disqualified from this discussion.

Now as for benefits to tax ratio, I will in fact concede to you, that at the absolute lowest end of the income spectrum, people get out, more than they put in.

However, I think you need to realize just how few fit that group.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...dicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-over-a-Lifetime.pdf

A single Male, Earning $45K a year, turning 65 in the year 2015:
Paid in Taxes: $337K

Will collect in benefits: $287K
Female Benefits: $314K (women tend to live longer)

That's significantly less in my book. Which means well more than 50% of the country, is collecting less than they paid in taxes.

Yet it's true that if you earn $20K for your entire life, you will collect far more in benefits, than you paid in taxes.

However, you seems to be missing our point.

If I earn $20,000 a year, until I retire, for doing that I get $12,000 a year in benefits. So taxes keep me broke until I retire, and then I'm even more broke until I die.

Do you think people who live on $12,000 a year in Social Security benefits, are sitting there going "Man this is great! I'm getting back more than I paid in!" while they live in a roach apartment with a beat up 20 year old car to get around in? I did meals on wheels to exactly these people. They are the most pitiful sight you could see.

6.5% of $20,000 a year, is $1,300 a year in taxes.
If you take that $108 a month, and put it into a growth stock mutual fund, over that same time frame of age 20 to age 67, you would end up with..... $1.2 Million dollars.

But thanks to you... those people have $12,000 a year. Now that's a good trade off.

On top of that.....

What you miss, is what advancement those people may have made, had they kept their own money.

Back in the year 1999-2000, I made some really terrible financial mistakes. I spent literally 6 years of my life, paying off loans and debts I had built up in 2 years. In 2006, I paid off nearly all of my debt, and closed out all debts, all credit cards, and all loans of any kind in 2008.

But most of it I paid off in 2006. When I got my account closed letter, and paid-in-full notices in 2006, I tallied up, and found that I had paid off $20,000 worth of debt and loans by 2006.

I received from the Social Security administration, that I had also paid into Social Security $23,000 in taxes.

If *I* had been able to keep *MY* own money, I would NOT have had to spend 6 years of my life working for the bank.

Millions of low wage earners could use that money to.... fix their cars, or repair their homes. Maybe they could have paid for some education, or training. Maybe they could have used the money to start a new business.

Seriously, during that 6 years, I did NOTHING. I bought NOTHING. I didn't even buy new clothes. I wish I had pictures of the rags that I wore during that time. The ripped shirts and torn pants, and so on.

So the Social Security tax, holds people down while they are working, so they can live impoverished when they retire?

And lastly.....

All the calculations, all the estimates, all the graphs and charts, all assume that people sit there and collect their meager $12K a year.

Problem is.... many don't. Most of the retired people, don't just sit on their butts, collecting impoverishment benefits. Most go back to work, because they can't possibly survive on so little.

But when they go to work..... they lose their benefits.

If I reach 67, I am certainly not going to live off of $12K a year. That's not going to happen. I'll keep working.

But then I'll lose my benefits.

So how much benefits will I collect over my taxes paid in, if I keep work? None... in fact, if I keep working, I'll be paying even more taxes into the system, for the benefits I don't receive.

All of that BULL CRAP, that the lowest income people will collect more than they paid in, all fo that is tossed out the window if they keep working at retirement age.

Bottom line..... Socialist Insecurity, is a terrible terrible program that ruins everyone.

And by the way...... It *IS* going broke. The retirement age will have to be raised, and taxes will have to be increased. Sooner, or later, the system will have to be changed, and it will make the already miserable benefit-to-tax ratio, far worse.

Clearly you are just masterbating. You are incapable of reading even simple sentences without going off on complete tangents. But yes SS is a horrible program for the middle class and an even more horrible program for the upper middle class. However, the rate of return being 8x for low income makes SS a good plan for the poor.

 

[Dad2three]

Many people I listen to who say they are conservatives don't have two cents to scratch their a**s with, and here's the funny part most of them don't even have health insurance, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can't afford it, or simply because they can't get it because of current state of health, and they still defend the system.......truly pathetic!!!

Well you got your guy elected and you had full control of Congress and you all passed Obamacare into law in order to fix the health care problem... so what happened? Why is health care insurance still unaffordable? Why do people still not have it?

You see, even when you're given full reign and allowed to push through whatever you please in legislative acts, you can't fix the problems and then you run out there and blame republicans for that. You act as if Republicans have controlled all the power and have been blocking everything you've proposed when you've gotten everything you wanted.

Single payer? Wasn't the republicans who blocked that, it was the democrats who wouldn't support it. Republicans didn't support ANY of it, single payer or not. But the thing is, single payer doesn't fix the problem either. Nothing you've proposed (or done) even begins to address the problems with our health care system.

You're all clueless idiot drones. You hang out at these Marxist blogs and get pumped full of Marxist idiocy, then run over here to copy-n-paste this stuff as if it's some new-age way of thinking, when it's recycled 19th century ideas that have done nothing but massively failed. You won't listen to anybody who has any sense at all, it's just easier for you to cling to a Utopian fantasy that will never transpire. You continue to fuck things up beyond repair, then have the unmitigated gall to blame your failures on your opposition.

Dems had 'full control'? Oh you mean a total of 24 days as Dubya'sGOP recession crashed the worlds economy?

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left

 

[Dad2three]

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

Did you also provide the links to the demopublican platforms that called for communism?


Why is trying to abolish slavery and tyranny "anarchy"?

.

PLEASE, if that's your posit, PLEASE feel open to post the links dummy? lol

3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

So we need a government , tyrannical or otherwise.


If it becomes destructive of individual liberty we just grin and bear it , right?


Fuck you miserable piece of parasitic shit.


Are you on probation, Intravenous Ritalin , nursing home resident?

Got it, you'll stick with the usual myths, distortions and LIES right wingers ALWAYS and ONLY have!

 

[Dad2three]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

View attachment 33386

Take a look at this graph and tell me what you think is happening to the so-called "middle class" families? It looks to me like the "middle class" is becoming the new rich. They aren't becoming the poor because the poor are also declining. The rich are getting richer, but so are the middle class and poor. Of course... "we" have to stop all this getting rich stuff! Too much of that going on these days! Marxism can only be properly promoted when people are hopelessly mired in poverty with no seeming way out. We have to keep telling people how worthless they are and how they can't help their condition and they need government to fix their situation. Repeat it over and over, pound it into their stubborn heads! If they refuse to believe it, ridicule them and call them stupid, insinuate they don't care about the poor and needy, brow-beat them and make them feel guilty for success. That's how Alinsky says it's done.

Weird, you present a graph showing middle income going from 61% in 1967 to 43% by 2009 AND argue what? lol

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.




The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[Dad2three]

Many people I listen to who say they are conservatives don't have two cents to scratch their a**s with, and here's the funny part most of them don't even have health insurance, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can't afford it, or simply because they can't get it because of current state of health, and they still defend the system.......truly pathetic!!!

Well you got your guy elected and you had full control of Congress and you all passed Obamacare into law in order to fix the health care problem... so what happened? Why is health care insurance still unaffordable? Why do people still not have it?

You see, even when you're given full reign and allowed to push through whatever you please in legislative acts, you can't fix the problems and then you run out there and blame republicans for that. You act as if Republicans have controlled all the power and have been blocking everything you've proposed when you've gotten everything you wanted.

Single payer? Wasn't the republicans who blocked that, it was the democrats who wouldn't support it. Republicans didn't support ANY of it, single payer or not. But the thing is, single payer doesn't fix the problem either. Nothing you've proposed (or done) even begins to address the problems with our health care system.

You're all clueless idiot drones. You hang out at these Marxist blogs and get pumped full of Marxist idiocy, then run over here to copy-n-paste this stuff as if it's some new-age way of thinking, when it's recycled 19th century ideas that have done nothing but massively failed. You won't listen to anybody who has any sense at all, it's just easier for you to cling to a Utopian fantasy that will never transpire. You continue to fuck things up beyond repair, then have the unmitigated gall to blame your failures on your opposition.

Unfortunate that the Affordable Care Act contains so many Republican ideas instead of being a single payer system. A predictable result considering how many members of both parties have had contributions to their campaign funds and PACs from insurance companies.

Wow... that's amazing to me... So Democrats pushed through a bill without a single Republican vote, to the vocal protest of every single Republican in Congress, promising us that it would be the greatest thing in the world once we passed it... and it was chock full of Republican ideas?

Sounds like you guys need to elect some new representatives to me. These people are obviously morons, if that is the case.

FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes


Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]
– Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Insurance Exchange: Creates a “de facto public option” by “grow[ing]” government control over healthcare.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Medicaid Expansion: Expands a “broken entitlement program,” providing a “low-quality, poorly functioning program.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

In fact, in 2007, Heritage again boasted that Romney’s plan is “already showing progress.” That same year, Heritage proudly posted a video of Romney gloating that Heritage officials had supported him in creating “ultimate conservatism” with the Massachusetts health plan. Watch it:

FLASHBACK Heritage Touted RomneyCare Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes ThinkProgress

 

[Dad2three]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

View attachment 33386

Take a look at this graph and tell me what you think is happening to the so-called "middle class" families? It looks to me like the "middle class" is becoming the new rich. They aren't becoming the poor because the poor are also declining. The rich are getting richer, but so are the middle class and poor. Of course... "we" have to stop all this getting rich stuff! Too much of that going on these days! Marxism can only be properly promoted when people are hopelessly mired in poverty with no seeming way out. We have to keep telling people how worthless they are and how they can't help their condition and they need government to fix their situation. Repeat it over and over, pound it into their stubborn heads! If they refuse to believe it, ridicule them and call them stupid, insinuate they don't care about the poor and needy, brow-beat them and make them feel guilty for success. That's how Alinsky says it's done.

Now I know you're not being serious.

This makes sense since the number of "top 1%" are growing and the number of "21-99%" is declining. Again... we gotta stop this getting rich stuff, it's cramping your style!

Weird, isn't 1% out of the 100% always the same? AND yet everyone else gets left behind? lol

 

[Dad2three]

All your graphs are predicated on the notion that "middle class" and "wealthy" remain entrapped in their class and never escape. As we see from MY graph (which is from the US Census Bureau), the upper-income people are growing in number while the middle and poor are declining.

Your graphs show that your problem is, too many people are leaving the middle class to become wealthy and make a lot of money, and we can't have that. How dare people to be successful!

The American Myth of Social Mobility

The American Myth of Social Mobility Howard Steven Friedman


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs


Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all



Income Inequality Impairs The American Dream Of Upward Mobility


Income Inequality Impairs The American Dream Of Upward Mobility ndash IQ2 Debates

 

[Dad2three]

So to summarize, this so called war on the rich is nothing more than a crude rhetorical diversion from the fact that the real war is being waged against the middle class. Rich folks are in no danger of becoming casualties.

Eggzactly. Middle class jobs are under attack from the bottom via illegal immigration, and the top via H1B visas and offshoring. Upper middle class income is under attack via the so called progressive tax system and offshoring. The rich.. yeah profits are up and govco is writing them checks from the upper middle class.

The rich have never been richer, but they don't drive the economy, the middle class does. While more wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a few, middle class wages have remained stagnant for more than twenty years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing wealth concentration, a shrinking middle class, and the decline of our economy.

Actually the correlation is between number of Democrats in office and a declining economy.

Link? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Plenty more where these came from.

Of course. The highest income range is always going to increase, as long as the economy grows.

But the lowest income...... is always...... ZERO. It's impossible to have the lowest income be millions of dollars... because the lowest income starting range.... is always.... ZERO.

It's called math dude. Math doesn't twist away into oblivion, just because you have an ideology. Shocking I know.

You are apparently incapable of knowing how much Fox News to drink..


As the rich get richer and store more of their loot off shore and out of the nation's economy