ANOTHER Simple Question For You Teabagger Simpletons

[Douger]

Since none of you dishonest tea bagger simpletons could give a direct, honest answer to this question...

The richest 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth in this country. This is the highest level since the 1920s & 1930s. Do you tea baggers honestly believe that this has NO negative impact on the other 99% of Americans??

...I've come up with a new question that might be a little easier for you intellectually challenged idiots --

In 1980, CEOs only made 30 times as much as the average American. Now, CEOs make over 300 times as much as the average Americans. Have CEOs "earned" a 1000% pay raise over the past 30 years??

Think long and hard on this one, tea bagger simpletons! Don't forget that it is your PEASANT DUTY to protect the wealth of rich Repugs!! They are your moral and intellectual superiors, after all.

KWO. These people are uh__murkins.
The only negative effect to them is they get to fill up the jails, join the military or get a govt job............all of which helps the rich even more.
It's by design and is working as planned.

 

[editec]

Since none of you dishonest tea bagger simpletons could give a direct, honest answer to this question...

The richest 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth in this country. This is the highest level since the 1920s & 1930s. Do you tea baggers honestly believe that this has NO negative impact on the other 99% of Americans??

...I've come up with a new question that might be a little easier for you intellectually challenged idiots --

In 1980, CEOs only made 30 times as much as the average American. Now, CEOs make over 300 times as much as the average Americans. Have CEOs "earned" a 1000% pay raise over the past 30 years??

Think long and hard on this one, tea bagger simpletons! Don't forget that it is your PEASANT DUTY to protect the wealth of rich Repugs!! They are your moral and intellectual superiors, after all.

Do you really expect anything but glib responses from stupid people? They don't have a "smart" alter ego. If you did a documentary showing how the hoarding of the money supply and how the speculation drives prices and how little respect the rich feel towards these fools that think pure capitalism is nirvana because they too will someday be one of the elite you are wasting your time. You are competing with a multibillion dollar brainwashing program that has these stooges totally under control. I swear these morons could be convinced by their masters to eat their own children.. If you confronted them about the horror...they would just ask you to pass the salt and pepper. This country is toast. It used to be worth saving...now...not so much..

Bingo!

 

[Intense]

It isn't my money. Under the rules by which we live, it is theirs to do with as they please.

Worrying about what someone else has is unhealthy. It is best to improve yourself, and help others in need. Those who are better off can take care of themselves, so worrying about them will only make you sick.

Now as to the practical consequences, I have to agree it is not good to foster this kind of thing.

It might be noted that this 1% changes a lot. The names in that list are now Buffet and Soros and Gates. Not to long ago, the names were Rockefeller and Kennedy and Ford. And before that it was Melon and Drexel and Morgan. As long as new names can rise up there, and the old names fade away (Paris Hilton seems determined that no Hilton will inherit a dime ever again.) As long as the names are mobile, we are ok. When the names become permanent through state action, then we need to worry.

Power is power . Power Effects change, be it Monetary, Political or what ever. To suggest that the Power to effect change is good or evil based solely on it being from a private source opposed to a Political or Government source is absurd. Where do you think your Government Leaders are invested? Pure Socialism? Pure Capitalism? Pure Unicorns ? Give me a break. Show me Purpose, Intention, Plan, Method, Study of effect.

Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuid of Happiness, Government by the Consent of the Governed. Realized, Informed, Consent, is what we fought for. Without these established Rights and Principles we are nothing more than Commodities, Property of the State. Question Authority! How soon we forget.

 

[Intense]

So, how much money should someone be aloud to make?

That isn't really the right question. I have no problem with how Bill Gates made his money nor how much he has acquired. He has been an excellent steward of his wealth and an exemplary beneficiary of our system.

The better question should be "how much risk to society should we allow anyone impose on the rest of us" in their quest for fortune? A company like Enron was acting basically within the law. The laws were changed to allow what Enron did. The banking laws were changed to allow what eventually was the recent collapse. Many saw this coming but greed won out over reason. There must be harsh penalties for what these people knowingly did. If not..this system is not worth defending any more.

Exactly. Government was a part of those Schemes. The Last thing we need is a Government with more power and less accountability.

Who is the silent partner of every Monopoly that imposes it's will on us?

Explain the Role of the Government Czar's and their lack of Transparency. What is it that a Czar does, that A Cabinet Member or Legitimate Government Official is not already being paid to do?

It is not the Concept of Private Property that is offensive, it is Intention, and the effects of harmful action. Establish the Hurt or Crime, the Damage, then seek appropriate remedy. The Punishment should fit the crime.

 

[editec]

You know....one of the most brilliant things the masters have done is to convince so many of us that the only choice is between government and the private sector.

The reason that's brilliant is because the masters control both and play the American people off against one another by pretending otherwise.

I am convinced that the world is basically controlled by socipathic geniuses.

Society is their farm, and the people are their livestock.

Occassionally the animals rebel but inevitably some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Intense]

You know....one of the most brilliant things the masters have done is to convince so many of us that the only choice is between government and the private sector.

The reason that's brilliant is because the masters control both and play the American people off against one another by pretending otherwise.

I am convinced that the world is basically controlled by socipathic geniuses.

Society is their farm, and the people are their livestock.

Occassionally the animals rebel but inevitably some animals are more equal than others.

True, yet when you have control over your own time, potential, resource, They are a less significant part of your life. That part of you is beyond Their Control. Locke nailed Individual Conscience, which They will perpetually will both endeavor to enslave or destroy, yet without which are doomed. They get it, and yet they don't. The Society of "Anthem", By Ayn Rand is their End without it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since none of you dishonest tea bagger simpletons could give a direct, honest answer to this question...

The richest 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth in this country. This is the highest level since the 1920s & 1930s. Do you tea baggers honestly believe that this has NO negative impact on the other 99% of Americans??

...I've come up with a new question that might be a little easier for you intellectually challenged idiots --

In 1980, CEOs only made 30 times as much as the average American. Now, CEOs make over 300 times as much as the average Americans. Have CEOs "earned" a 1000% pay raise over the past 30 years??

Think long and hard on this one, tea bagger simpletons! Don't forget that it is your PEASANT DUTY to protect the wealth of rich Repugs!! They are your moral and intellectual superiors, after all.

First, at least 2/3 of the richest 1% started from scratch and built their own fortunes

Second, I will not discuss CEO compensation with people who have no idea what a CEO does

Third, get a life.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...ves-govern-a-cautionary-tale.html#post3131327

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Since none of you dishonest tea bagger simpletons could give a direct, honest answer to this question...

The richest 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth in this country. This is the highest level since the 1920s & 1930s. Do you tea baggers honestly believe that this has NO negative impact on the other 99% of Americans??

...I've come up with a new question that might be a little easier for you intellectually challenged idiots --

In 1980, CEOs only made 30 times as much as the average American. Now, CEOs make over 300 times as much as the average Americans. Have CEOs "earned" a 1000% pay raise over the past 30 years??

Think long and hard on this one, tea bagger simpletons! Don't forget that it is your PEASANT DUTY to protect the wealth of rich Repugs!! They are your moral and intellectual superiors, after all.

No, it has no negative impact. IMO

 

[DiveCon]

So, how much money should someone be aloud to make?

That isn't really the right question. I have no problem with how Bill Gates made his money nor how much he has acquired. He has been an excellent steward of his wealth and an exemplary beneficiary of our system.

The better question should be "how much risk to society should we allow anyone impose on the rest of us" in their quest for fortune? A company like Enron was acting basically within the law. The laws were changed to allow what Enron did. The banking laws were changed to allow what eventually was the recent collapse. Many saw this coming but greed won out over reason. There must be harsh penalties for what these people knowingly did. If not..this system is not worth defending any more.

Exactly. Government was a part of those Schemes. The Last thing we need is a Government with more power and less accountability.

Who is the silent partner of every Monopoly that imposes it's will on us?

Explain the Role of the Government Czar's and their lack of Transparency. What is it that a Czar does, that A Cabinet Member or Legitimate Government Official is not already being paid to do?

It is not the Concept of Private Property that is offensive, it is Intention, and the effects of harmful action. Establish the Hurt or Crime, the Damage, then seek appropriate remedy. The Punishment should fit the crime.

did you know that most of the so called "Czars" are actually cabinet level people who were confirmed in thier positions by the senate?

 

[Intense]

That isn't really the right question. I have no problem with how Bill Gates made his money nor how much he has acquired. He has been an excellent steward of his wealth and an exemplary beneficiary of our system.

The better question should be "how much risk to society should we allow anyone impose on the rest of us" in their quest for fortune? A company like Enron was acting basically within the law. The laws were changed to allow what Enron did. The banking laws were changed to allow what eventually was the recent collapse. Many saw this coming but greed won out over reason. There must be harsh penalties for what these people knowingly did. If not..this system is not worth defending any more.

Exactly. Government was a part of those Schemes. The Last thing we need is a Government with more power and less accountability.

Who is the silent partner of every Monopoly that imposes it's will on us?

Explain the Role of the Government Czar's and their lack of Transparency. What is it that a Czar does, that A Cabinet Member or Legitimate Government Official is not already being paid to do?

It is not the Concept of Private Property that is offensive, it is Intention, and the effects of harmful action. Establish the Hurt or Crime, the Damage, then seek appropriate remedy. The Punishment should fit the crime.

did you know that most of the so called "Czars" are actually cabinet level people who were confirmed in thier positions by the senate?

Some Yes. Still I find it very unappealing. There is a shell game being played. Do you want to hire me to do your job and still get paid? Then there is the problem of Power and Dictate. Sort of Extra-Constitutional Power. Too many Agencies running loose off the Reservation, handing down Decree's ad Mandates outside of due process.

 

[DiveCon]

Exactly. Government was a part of those Schemes. The Last thing we need is a Government with more power and less accountability.

Who is the silent partner of every Monopoly that imposes it's will on us?

Explain the Role of the Government Czar's and their lack of Transparency. What is it that a Czar does, that A Cabinet Member or Legitimate Government Official is not already being paid to do?

It is not the Concept of Private Property that is offensive, it is Intention, and the effects of harmful action. Establish the Hurt or Crime, the Damage, then seek appropriate remedy. The Punishment should fit the crime.

did you know that most of the so called "Czars" are actually cabinet level people who were confirmed in thier positions by the senate?

Some Yes. Still I find it very unappealing. There is a shell game being played. Do you want to hire me to do your job and still get paid? Then there is the problem of Power and Dictate. Sort of Extra-Constitutional Power. Too many Agencies running loose off the Reservation, handing down Decree's ad Mandates outside of due process.

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

 

[Intense]

did you know that most of the so called "Czars" are actually cabinet level people who were confirmed in thier positions by the senate?

Some Yes. Still I find it very unappealing. There is a shell game being played. Do you want to hire me to do your job and still get paid? Then there is the problem of Power and Dictate. Sort of Extra-Constitutional Power. Too many Agencies running loose off the Reservation, handing down Decree's ad Mandates outside of due process.

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

The plethora of Obama-appointed czars, who are not subject to Senate confirmation, has rankled conservatives and others wary of an overreaching executive branch. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans, in response to that concern, have introduced a bill to try to eliminate the czars. The Hill reports:

The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

But, wait. As troubling as the czars are, does Congress have the power to tell the president whom he can hire?

I talked to some smart conservative constitutional gurus. Although there are few definitive answers in this area, it is important to keep some parameters in mind. In the most general terms, the Constitution requires Senate confirmation of non-inferior "Officers." If a czar is an "Officer" rather than mere adviser, the czar-elimination bill should pass constitutional muster. The problem with the bill then is one of clarity -- which of the czars would "otherwise require Senate confirmation" -- that is, be considered an "Officer"?

Right Turn - Czar legislation







List of Obama’s Czars
Friday, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM EDT

List of Obama’s Czars – Glenn Beck

 

[DiveCon]

Some Yes. Still I find it very unappealing. There is a shell game being played. Do you want to hire me to do your job and still get paid? Then there is the problem of Power and Dictate. Sort of Extra-Constitutional Power. Too many Agencies running loose off the Reservation, handing down Decree's ad Mandates outside of due process.

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

The plethora of Obama-appointed czars, who are not subject to Senate confirmation, has rankled conservatives and others wary of an overreaching executive branch. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans, in response to that concern, have introduced a bill to try to eliminate the czars. The Hill reports:

The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

But, wait. As troubling as the czars are, does Congress have the power to tell the president whom he can hire?

I talked to some smart conservative constitutional gurus. Although there are few definitive answers in this area, it is important to keep some parameters in mind. In the most general terms, the Constitution requires Senate confirmation of non-inferior "Officers." If a czar is an "Officer" rather than mere adviser, the czar-elimination bill should pass constitutional muster. The problem with the bill then is one of clarity -- which of the czars would "otherwise require Senate confirmation" -- that is, be considered an "Officer"?

Right Turn - Czar legislation







List of Obama’s Czars
Friday, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM EDT

List of Obama’s Czars – Glenn Beck

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


look at that list
you will also see that several of them ARE confirmed by the Senate
and that he has only slightly more than Bush had

 

[Intense]

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

The plethora of Obama-appointed czars, who are not subject to Senate confirmation, has rankled conservatives and others wary of an overreaching executive branch. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans, in response to that concern, have introduced a bill to try to eliminate the czars. The Hill reports:

The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

But, wait. As troubling as the czars are, does Congress have the power to tell the president whom he can hire?

I talked to some smart conservative constitutional gurus. Although there are few definitive answers in this area, it is important to keep some parameters in mind. In the most general terms, the Constitution requires Senate confirmation of non-inferior "Officers." If a czar is an "Officer" rather than mere adviser, the czar-elimination bill should pass constitutional muster. The problem with the bill then is one of clarity -- which of the czars would "otherwise require Senate confirmation" -- that is, be considered an "Officer"?

Right Turn - Czar legislation







List of Obama’s Czars
Friday, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM EDT

List of Obama’s Czars – Glenn Beck

List of U.S. executive branch czars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


look at that list
you will also see that several of them ARE confirmed by the Senate
and that he has only slightly more than Bush had

I get your point.I'm not refuting it. I'm just plainly stating that the position is routinely used to act without oversight. In that role it is an abuse, as my first link supports. More than a few on that list are gone now, people that had no business in the role from the start. I don't support Bush using Czar's, I don't support Obama using Czars. I do not support Runaway Renegade Government agencies drunk on power either. I could care less that some are Boy Scouts. There is a perceived Threat. It is real.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since none of you dishonest tea bagger simpletons could give a direct, honest answer to this question...

The richest 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth in this country. This is the highest level since the 1920s & 1930s. Do you tea baggers honestly believe that this has NO negative impact on the other 99% of Americans??

...I've come up with a new question that might be a little easier for you intellectually challenged idiots --

In 1980, CEOs only made 30 times as much as the average American. Now, CEOs make over 300 times as much as the average Americans. Have CEOs "earned" a 1000% pay raise over the past 30 years??

Think long and hard on this one, tea bagger simpletons! Don't forget that it is your PEASANT DUTY to protect the wealth of rich Repugs!! They are your moral and intellectual superiors, after all.

No one gave an honest answer because you rejected the truth that wealth is not zero sum. As for how CEOs earned the raise they got, ask the people that are paying them. Personally, I am more concerned with making sure the people who work for me, AKA Congress, starts earning the money they keep giving themselves. If I could just get the rest the wingers on both sides to start demanding that those idiots take a serious pay cut, because they have not earned any pay raise since about 1790, we would be a lot better off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

]It isn't my money.[/b] Under the rules by which we live, it is theirs to do with as they please.

Worrying about what someone else has is unhealthy. It is best to improve yourself, and help others in need. Those who are better off can take care of themselves, so worrying about them will only make you sick.

Now as to the practical consequences, I have to agree it is not good to foster this kind of thing.

It might be noted that this 1% changes a lot. The names in that list are now Buffet and Soros and Gates. Not to long ago, the names were Rockefeller and Kennedy and Ford. And before that it was Melon and Drexel and Morgan. As long as new names can rise up there, and the old names fade away (Paris Hilton seems determined that no Hilton will inherit a dime ever again.) As long as the names are mobile, we are ok. When the names become permanent through state action, then we need to worry.

Not entirely or absolutely true. We are all invested in this system. If the rules are not enforced or are changed to game the system we are all affected. The money supply is an important factor in our economy. If too much of it is misused we get melt downs like the troubled assets. Our future should not be at the mercy of foolish speculation and predatory greed. If the bankers can change the rules to willfully destroy lives then turnabout should be fair play. I would hope that some of the victims of their larceny should conveniently change their perspectives on the rules regarding murder and kill a few of the sons of bitches. Sort of a pure supply and demand reaction.

How many people do you think would buy securities made up of sub prime mortgages had not been backed by government agencies that were pushing them the way they did?

 

[Cuyo]

did you know that most of the so called "Czars" are actually cabinet level people who were confirmed in thier positions by the senate?

Some Yes. Still I find it very unappealing. There is a shell game being played. Do you want to hire me to do your job and still get paid? Then there is the problem of Power and Dictate. Sort of Extra-Constitutional Power. Too many Agencies running loose off the Reservation, handing down Decree's ad Mandates outside of due process.

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

Thank you, Dive. In fact the appointment of the "Czar" title is often a media creation. There is no real authority attached to it; Not under this POTUS, and not under any other.

 

[Revere]

Some Yes. Still I find it very unappealing. There is a shell game being played. Do you want to hire me to do your job and still get paid? Then there is the problem of Power and Dictate. Sort of Extra-Constitutional Power. Too many Agencies running loose off the Reservation, handing down Decree's ad Mandates outside of due process.

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

Thank you, Dive. In fact the appointment of the "Czar" title is often a media creation. There is no real authority attached to it; Not under this POTUS, and not under any other.

Then there is no point in pissing away tax dollars to keep 39 of them on the payroll.

 

[Cuyo]

the point is, calling someone the "czar of XXXX" while their real job is a cabinet position isnt really a big deal to me

Thank you, Dive. In fact the appointment of the "Czar" title is often a media creation. There is no real authority attached to it; Not under this POTUS, and not under any other.

Then there is no point in pissing away tax dollars to keep 39 of them on the payroll.

They are not "paid" in their capacity as a "Czar."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That isn't really the right question. I have no problem with how Bill Gates made his money nor how much he has acquired. He has been an excellent steward of his wealth and an exemplary beneficiary of our system.

The better question should be "how much risk to society should we allow anyone impose on the rest of us" in their quest for fortune? A company like Enron was acting basically within the law. The laws were changed to allow what Enron did. The banking laws were changed to allow what eventually was the recent collapse. Many saw this coming but greed won out over reason. There must be harsh penalties for what these people knowingly did. If not..this system is not worth defending any more.

Exactly. Government was a part of those Schemes. The Last thing we need is a Government with more power and less accountability.

Who is the silent partner of every Monopoly that imposes it's will on us?

Explain the Role of the Government Czar's and their lack of Transparency. What is it that a Czar does, that A Cabinet Member or Legitimate Government Official is not already being paid to do?

It is not the Concept of Private Property that is offensive, it is Intention, and the effects of harmful action. Establish the Hurt or Crime, the Damage, then seek appropriate remedy. The Punishment should fit the crime.

did you know that most of the so called "Czars" are actually cabinet level people who were confirmed in thier positions by the senate?

And then we have the ones who are not, like Elizabeth Warren, who was put in charge of the CFBP without going through confirmation.