Would you prefer just ONE owner instead of the "Top 8% Owning 85%"?

[Brain357]

There is a Message with this thread title: Top 8% Own 85%

And so I ask would those of you that are jealous and too lazy to become part of the 8%, would you prefer
just one owner of all the assets in the USA?

If so, here are some pictures of The Republic of Cuba is one of the world's last remaining socialist countries following the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Constitution of 1976, which defined Cuba as a socialist republic, was replaced by the Constitution of 1992, which is "guided by the ideas of José Martí and the political and social ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin."[4] The constitution describes the Communist Party of Cuba as the "leading force of society and of the state" Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View attachment 71034

Why do you crazies always jump to communism? What most of us want is less inequality like we had after ww2 and into the 70s. I don't recall us having communism then...

But you may have bought into the MSM biased stories about Obama ...not realizing that Obama hates capitalism. Hates American values.
Obama is the most socialistic, big brother government supporter who has told us he wants to see 1,400 companies go broke that pay $100 billion in taxes and employ over
450,000 people! He told us he'd like to see coal utilities go bankrupt and his doing that? Why would anyone want failures for others? Again Obama and his
phony intellectual elite KNOW better then us fly over people! Totally reminiscent of central planning, D.C. cubicle dwellers...we know best!

I see a lot of hating capitalism on both sides. The right seems to have embraced crony capitalism. In the other thread morons are defending Apple and other tech companies colluding to hold down wages. That is not good capitalism. Non competes? Not good capitalism either. The right and the rich have embraced cronyism.

Please define "crony capitalism". Also Apple ...hold down wages???

"To put that in perspective, Apple now has 60,400 employees. 36,000 of those work in the retail segment; we can assume they don’t get options or RSUs. So excluding retail, Apple has about 24,400 employees. Let’s double that number, to include all the employees who have left over the years — call it 50,000 in all. $172 billion divided by 50,000 employees is $3.4 million per employee."
How much do Apple employees earn?
So pardon the idiocy of "holding down wages" comment explain how Apple employees become part of the 8%???

Another righty who supports illegal activities by the rich. Shocking.

Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case

 

[healthmyths]

There is a Message with this thread title: Top 8% Own 85%

And so I ask would those of you that are jealous and too lazy to become part of the 8%, would you prefer
just one owner of all the assets in the USA?

If so, here are some pictures of The Republic of Cuba is one of the world's last remaining socialist countries following the Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Constitution of 1976, which defined Cuba as a socialist republic, was replaced by the Constitution of 1992, which is "guided by the ideas of José Martí and the political and social ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin."[4] The constitution describes the Communist Party of Cuba as the "leading force of society and of the state" Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View attachment 71034

Why do you crazies always jump to communism? What most of us want is less inequality like we had after ww2 and into the 70s. I don't recall us having communism then...

But you may have bought into the MSM biased stories about Obama ...not realizing that Obama hates capitalism. Hates American values.
Obama is the most socialistic, big brother government supporter who has told us he wants to see 1,400 companies go broke that pay $100 billion in taxes and employ over
450,000 people! He told us he'd like to see coal utilities go bankrupt and his doing that? Why would anyone want failures for others? Again Obama and his
phony intellectual elite KNOW better then us fly over people! Totally reminiscent of central planning, D.C. cubicle dwellers...we know best!

I see a lot of hating capitalism on both sides. The right seems to have embraced crony capitalism. In the other thread morons are defending Apple and other tech companies colluding to hold down wages. That is not good capitalism. Non competes? Not good capitalism either. The right and the rich have embraced cronyism.

Please define "crony capitalism". Also Apple ...hold down wages???

"To put that in perspective, Apple now has 60,400 employees. 36,000 of those work in the retail segment; we can assume they don’t get options or RSUs. So excluding retail, Apple has about 24,400 employees. Let’s double that number, to include all the employees who have left over the years — call it 50,000 in all. $172 billion divided by 50,000 employees is $3.4 million per employee."
How much do Apple employees earn?
So pardon the idiocy of "holding down wages" comment explain how Apple employees become part of the 8%???

Another righty who supports illegal activities by the rich. Shocking.

Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case

And the real winners???
Despite all the fuss, however, the revised deal will only produce modest payouts. After the lawyers receive their expected contingency fee of about 25 percent( Over $100 million to the lawyers!), the 64,000 or so engineers covered by the deal will likely receive a few thousand dollars each.
Gigaom | Apple, Google anti-poaching settlement now reported to be $415M

 

[Brain357]

Why do you crazies always jump to communism? What most of us want is less inequality like we had after ww2 and into the 70s. I don't recall us having communism then...

But you may have bought into the MSM biased stories about Obama ...not realizing that Obama hates capitalism. Hates American values.
Obama is the most socialistic, big brother government supporter who has told us he wants to see 1,400 companies go broke that pay $100 billion in taxes and employ over
450,000 people! He told us he'd like to see coal utilities go bankrupt and his doing that? Why would anyone want failures for others? Again Obama and his
phony intellectual elite KNOW better then us fly over people! Totally reminiscent of central planning, D.C. cubicle dwellers...we know best!

I see a lot of hating capitalism on both sides. The right seems to have embraced crony capitalism. In the other thread morons are defending Apple and other tech companies colluding to hold down wages. That is not good capitalism. Non competes? Not good capitalism either. The right and the rich have embraced cronyism.

Please define "crony capitalism". Also Apple ...hold down wages???

"To put that in perspective, Apple now has 60,400 employees. 36,000 of those work in the retail segment; we can assume they don’t get options or RSUs. So excluding retail, Apple has about 24,400 employees. Let’s double that number, to include all the employees who have left over the years — call it 50,000 in all. $172 billion divided by 50,000 employees is $3.4 million per employee."
How much do Apple employees earn?
So pardon the idiocy of "holding down wages" comment explain how Apple employees become part of the 8%???

Another righty who supports illegal activities by the rich. Shocking.

Judge approves $415M settlement in Apple, Google wage case

And the real winners???
Despite all the fuss, however, the revised deal will only produce modest payouts. After the lawyers receive their expected contingency fee of about 25 percent( Over $100 million to the lawyers!), the 64,000 or so engineers covered by the deal will likely receive a few thousand dollars each.
Gigaom | Apple, Google anti-poaching settlement now reported to be $415M

And you support illegal activities and then are surprised when people blame capitalism. Collusion is not good capitalism. Morons like you supporting it is why people hate capitalism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hm, no one is going to define anything for you until you stop making dumb ass statements like "So you are in favor of seizing the 8% wealth and redistributing it" (how did you come up with if you were not drunk?) and start giving some links of your own.

Your OP has failed from the beginning as a False Dilemma.

 

[DGS49]

There are lots of numbers floating around to whine about the relatively small percentage of American households that own a relatively large percentage of America's "wealth." Similarly, there are a lot of numbers floating around about how a tiny percentage of American taxpayers at the top pay more in Federal taxes than the "bottom 70%."

And the statistics could very well be accurate on both sides, although when speaking about the total taxes paid by those on the bottom, social security and medicare taxes are always ignored. But still...

In many countries, the people and/or their governments have decided that it is good public policy to confiscate the wealth or earnings of those "at the top" and use that confiscated wealth to make life easier for those at the bottom. So those countries often have "free" health care, "free" college tuition, "free" housing for "poor" people, and a perpetual guaranteed income for those without jobs or other income (collectively referred to herein as "Government Goodies").. Parenthetically, such countries are now facing hordes of would-be and actual immigrants who go there for the express purpose of gaining access to their Government Goodies.

One could have a long discussion about whether such policies are wise, humane, sustainable, or realistic, but that discussion would have no relevance in the United States of America ("USA").

Because the USA has a written Constitution that clearly defines and limits the powers of the national government. The powers of the Federal Government are specifically laid out in Article I, Section 8. And so that there is no mis-understanding, the Tenth Amendment further states that powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and to the people.

Thus, if the Federal Government (i.e., the Congress) would decide, for example, that HEALTHCARE is something so vital that it must be re-cast as a "Constitutional Right," then two things would have to happen.

First, since an affirmative "right" to something cannot be granted by the Government unless the Government itself has the means to provide that thing (as with the "right to Counsel," which is guaranteed by the Government employing attorneys who are assigned to represent people who cannot afford to pay for them out of their own resources), the U.S. Government would have to OWN hospitals, clinics, labs, and son on, and would have to EMPLOY doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers for the benefit of those who could not pay for their services out of their own resources.

Second, the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to permit the Federal Government to undertake the granting of this "right."

Democrats always seem to forget these two prerequisites to Government granting a right or benefit.

And on a broader scale, if the U.S. Government decided that it wanted to guarantee a certain level of income or subsistence, it would have to (a) raise sufficient tax dollars to pay for it, and (b) Amend the Constitution to permit Congress to re-distribute wealth in this manner. Note that there is NO PROVISION currently in the U.S. Constitution that allows Congress to collect taxes for the purpose of giving money to people who need it. And even if the need is very, very, very acute, and EVERYBODY thinks it's a good, excellent, wonderful, efficacious, kind, and "Christian" thing to do, the Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO IT!

Same for "free college tuition."

So there.

 

[whitehall]

Would you prefer a country where you are able to become one of the 8% with a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work or a country where you work for minimum wage for the rest of your life?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Would you prefer a country where you are able to become one of the 8% with a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work or a country where you work for minimum wage for the rest of your life?

Another false dilemma fallacy.