It's Time For A Flat Tax.

[Skull Pilot]

Come on Moonbats, there have to some of you out there who will try to tell us that a flat tax will ruin the country.

Where are you?

This "Moonbat" is concerned with the long term effect of a flat tax. Our nation has always returned to the center, when our elected officials overreach to the left or to the right the American voter produces a correction. We have seen this time and again in national as well as state and local elections.

In less than a generation of a flat tax, the very wealthy + the Citizens United decision will have the ability to transform us from a democratic republic into a pure plutocracy, where the party of the wealthy will make the laws and, by controlling a majority on the Supreme Court modify even our Constitution to suit their needs, at the expense of the hoi polloi.

History suggests such a transformation can have only one consequence, one most feared by the rich and powerful. See 1789, 1848, 1917 and the Spring of 2011 for a few notable examples.

Of course a flat tax is not a sufficient and necessary cause of civil unrest; examples of civil unrest are well known in our country during the lifetime of most baby boomers. Efforts to suppress voting rights, to undermine public education and to cut the salary and benefits of working men and women while defending millionaires and billionaires is another cause leading us eventually to a plutocratic America.

Or to our own "Arab Spring". Think about it (those of you who can).

Puhlease.

So your justification for a punitive tax code is that you're afraid of the big bad rich people?

With all the extra money that will be injected into the economy there will be a lot more opportunity for people to get rich.

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOWER TAXES INCREASE REVENUE

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I get it. All of us should cut our income so we can enjoy greater wealth.

You can't deny the results. Every country that has implemented a flat tax has seen an increase in revenue.

If you care to refute that then post a link to support your ovine knee jerk bleating.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes yes, we know... the bottom 45% pay nothing or make money from income tax and that's fair. The top 10% pay 75% of all taxes and that's not enough.

Let's encourage more poverty while driving success, wealth and achievement out of this nation. I just don't get why you leftie loonies can't see that you tax items you want to reduce, and subsidize what you want more of, but fail to apply that to people.

And under a flat tax system, the top 1% will CONTINUE to pay the majority of the taxes! Because the top 1% hold the majority of the wealth.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes yes, we know... the bottom 45% pay nothing or make money from income tax and that's fair. The top 10% pay 75% of all taxes and that's not enough.

Let's encourage more poverty while driving success, wealth and achievement out of this nation. I just don't get why you leftie loonies can't see that you tax items you want to reduce, and subsidize what you want more of, but fail to apply that to people.

The bottom 45% pay taxes, maybe not Federal Income Tax, so try to be honest. Who are the bottom 45%? You tend to toss out numbers and stats without context, doing so might make your opinions credible.

Many of the poor work, some two or more part-time jobs at minimum wage without benefits. What I find despicable about the right is their willingness to take from the poor - their labor - and expect the poor to pay the same percentage of their limited income as does everyone who is earning much more.

And you guys claim the left is engaged in class warfare. The fact that some of you believe that is amazing.

Wow... you need some aspirin? Moving those goalposts must have hurt something.

We've been talking about INCOME tax. How could there be a flat tax for consumption taxes???

Then you bitch about context oh king of vacuum thinking? Wow, you better carry your epi-pen just in case you run into some credibility. The anaphylaxis is likely to kill you otherwise.

How you earn your money is irrelevant. The fact that 85% of all minimium wage jobs are held by teens, retirees and are second household incomes (yes all three are true) seem to fuck up your contextual point it seems. No surprise here.

We believe in class mobility. We think it is for the benefit of society to not take from those who do well to enable others to languish comfortably in poverty providing a net drain on the country while bitching about their entitlement to it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes yes, we know... the bottom 45% pay nothing or make money from income tax and that's fair. The top 10% pay 75% of all taxes and that's not enough.

Let's encourage more poverty while driving success, wealth and achievement out of this nation. I just don't get why you leftie loonies can't see that you tax items you want to reduce, and subsidize what you want more of, but fail to apply that to people.

And under a flat tax system, the top 1% will CONTINUE to pay the majority of the taxes! Because the top 1% hold the majority of the wealth.

Crazy how that works! A flat percentage would be more if you had more versus less.

I'm not demanding numerical equality, because that becomes a regressive tax.

Was that supposed to be some sort of refutation of the flat tax? The difference would be no more freeloaders (a proper use of the term) making money off of the income tax system. No more 'second christmas' for them either at the expense of the middle and upper classes most seriously affected by tax law. Why the middle class? Because it isn't profitable enough to hire an accountant to shelter their wealth from taxation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Come on Moonbats, there have to some of you out there who will try to tell us that a flat tax will ruin the country.

Where are you?

This "Moonbat" is concerned with the long term effect of a flat tax. Our nation has always returned to the center, when our elected officials overreach to the left or to the right the American voter produces a correction. We have seen this time and again in national as well as state and local elections.

In less than a generation of a flat tax, the very wealthy + the Citizens United decision will have the ability to transform us from a democratic republic into a pure plutocracy, where the party of the wealthy will make the laws and, by controlling a majority on the Supreme Court modify even our Constitution to suit their needs, at the expense of the hoi polloi.

History suggests such a transformation can have only one consequence, one most feared by the rich and powerful. See 1789, 1848, 1917 and the Spring of 2011 for a few notable examples.

Of course a flat tax is not a sufficient and necessary cause of civil unrest; examples of civil unrest are well known in our country during the lifetime of most baby boomers. Efforts to suppress voting rights, to undermine public education and to cut the salary and benefits of working men and women while defending millionaires and billionaires is another cause leading us eventually to a plutocratic America.

Or to our own "Arab Spring". Think about it (those of you who can).

Puhlease.

So your justification for a punitive tax code is that you're afraid of the big bad rich people?

With all the extra money that will be injected into the economy there will be a lot more opportunity for people to get rich.

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

 

[Nosmo King]

Yes yes, we know... the bottom 45% pay nothing or make money from income tax and that's fair. The top 10% pay 75% of all taxes and that's not enough.

Let's encourage more poverty while driving success, wealth and achievement out of this nation. I just don't get why you leftie loonies can't see that you tax items you want to reduce, and subsidize what you want more of, but fail to apply that to people.

And under a flat tax system, the top 1% will CONTINUE to pay the majority of the taxes! Because the top 1% hold the majority of the wealth.

Crazy how that works! A flat percentage would be more if you had more versus less.

I'm not demanding numerical equality, because that becomes a regressive tax.

Was that supposed to be some sort of refutation of the flat tax? The difference would be no more freeloaders (a proper use of the term) making money off of the income tax system. No more 'second christmas' for them either at the expense of the middle and upper classes most seriously affected by tax law. Why the middle class? Because it isn't profitable enough to hire an accountant to shelter their wealth from taxation.

No. It's supposed to refute the tired old meme that the top 1% pay most of the tax. So, in order to make life easier for the top 1% we must tax the poorest people. Well, if you make $2,000,000 a year and pay $200,000 as your flat tax at 10%, you're paying more than most people earn. Therefore it is true that the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes.

And that second Christmas is the return of over payments to the IRS because someone filled out a W-4 form with more dependents than they have. this is allowing the IRS to hold that paycheck deduction interest free, something I have never done.

 

[Big Fitz]

This "Moonbat" is concerned with the long term effect of a flat tax. Our nation has always returned to the center, when our elected officials overreach to the left or to the right the American voter produces a correction. We have seen this time and again in national as well as state and local elections.

In less than a generation of a flat tax, the very wealthy + the Citizens United decision will have the ability to transform us from a democratic republic into a pure plutocracy, where the party of the wealthy will make the laws and, by controlling a majority on the Supreme Court modify even our Constitution to suit their needs, at the expense of the hoi polloi.

History suggests such a transformation can have only one consequence, one most feared by the rich and powerful. See 1789, 1848, 1917 and the Spring of 2011 for a few notable examples.

Of course a flat tax is not a sufficient and necessary cause of civil unrest; examples of civil unrest are well known in our country during the lifetime of most baby boomers. Efforts to suppress voting rights, to undermine public education and to cut the salary and benefits of working men and women while defending millionaires and billionaires is another cause leading us eventually to a plutocratic America.

Or to our own "Arab Spring". Think about it (those of you who can).

Puhlease.

So your justification for a punitive tax code is that you're afraid of the big bad rich people?

With all the extra money that will be injected into the economy there will be a lot more opportunity for people to get rich.

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive.

Punitive? Yep. You charge more to people for success for the access to FEWER government services. Sounds punitive to me. Like mom saying you can have less allowance than your sibling because you got A's on your report card, AND they get more desert than you because you don't need it due to your success.

Sure it's fair. By that logic, so is this.

UC Berkeley 'Racist' Bake Sale Demonstration Sparks Outrage

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich

So... I'm wondering, is the number of households in the top quintile increasing or decreasing? Is all that 'hoarded money' staying in the same hands, completely static? I've been looking for numbers on this but for some reason, nobody provides a "Number of households by income per year" graph out there. So someone else with better google fu can find it, I am quite certain you will find the number of upper class households growing as income mobility occurs.

it is NOT trickling down.

Not in this nation. We're a horrible investment bet right now, but not as bad as Europe. Nope. That money is going to stay safely away till we get taxation sanity in this nation making us a better investment bet. Obama's hell at offshoring capital.

Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker

We will and his success record shows why.

keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy,

Since it hasn't happened yet, they're not bringing their money back to this nation. I hope we do finally, and get that money flooding back in here. Globally mobile wealth means you can't force them to pay what you consider fair when they don't have to put up with your greed.

keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class

It's called a depression and it affects the richest the most, and the middle class the hardest. The poor barely notice a change because they're already in the safety hammock that is so well protected politically, it's as if things only get more crowded, not worse.

continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us.

Unenforced laws are worse. You make thank the the Obama administration for being delinquent in prosecution of those violating the law. Regs should be streamlined and fiercely enforced. That's good business policy.

Back to the Gilded Age,

Having another bout of cretinism? Nobody is advocating that, except for hyperventilating hysterical partisan progressives hyperbole pimps fearmongering for fun and fiction.

the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

It's called the free market. Booms and busts are short lived. It's when the government meddles that they become problematically long. FDR's New Deal proved that completely. And now P-BO's Great Recession Hoax and Blame. And who was it that caused most of the civil unrest worldwide in the 1930's? Communists, Fascists and Progressives. Whoops! Who started the wars? Yipes! Who exterminated millions of 'undesirables'? Uh oh! Who experimented on minorities and sterilized the enfeebled? Oh my! Yeah, you got little reason to pretend to be superior here.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

This is why the Tea Party is feared and the Occupados are mocked.

Do you like the taste of door? Is that why you keep slamming one into your face?

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOWER TAXES INCREASE REVENUE

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I get it. All of us should cut our income so we can enjoy greater wealth.

You can't deny the results. Every country that has implemented a flat tax has seen an increase in revenue.

If you care to refute that then post a link to support your ovine knee jerk bleating.

You are so focused on your agenda you are unable to consider its potential for negative consequences. Revenue may or may not increase, it's your argument and I'm not disputing it (though that does not mean I accept it as universally true). I point out, concisely, clearly and with as many examples as I can what may be the result of what you consider, apparently, a panacea for our economic woes.

Call me a devil's advocate or stupid, what ever gives you solace. My remarks are based on my education, experience and the ability to critically examine the opinions of others and myself. Try that sometime, it can make your opinions stronger and your arguments more effective - or give you a new perspective which might surprise you.

 

[Big Fitz]

And under a flat tax system, the top 1% will CONTINUE to pay the majority of the taxes! Because the top 1% hold the majority of the wealth.

Crazy how that works! A flat percentage would be more if you had more versus less.

I'm not demanding numerical equality, because that becomes a regressive tax.

Was that supposed to be some sort of refutation of the flat tax? The difference would be no more freeloaders (a proper use of the term) making money off of the income tax system. No more 'second christmas' for them either at the expense of the middle and upper classes most seriously affected by tax law. Why the middle class? Because it isn't profitable enough to hire an accountant to shelter their wealth from taxation.

No. It's supposed to refute the tired old meme that the top 1% pay most of the tax. So, in order to make life easier for the top 1% we must tax the poorest people. Well, if you make $2,000,000 a year and pay $200,000 as your flat tax at 10%, you're paying more than most people earn. Therefore it is true that the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes.

And that second Christmas is the return of over payments to the IRS because someone filled out a W-4 form with more dependents than they have. this is allowing the IRS to hold that paycheck deduction interest free, something I have never done.

You know, it's not worth dignifing your false premise. You are deliberately misconstruing the argument for a political fallacy.

You're not getting it, and not worth explaining to. I'll let someone else do the work.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Puhlease.

So your justification for a punitive tax code is that you're afraid of the big bad rich people?

With all the extra money that will be injected into the economy there will be a lot more opportunity for people to get rich.

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

Punitive? Yep. You charge more to people for success for the access to FEWER government services. Sounds punitive to me. Like mom saying you can have less allowance than your sibling because you got A's on your report card, AND they get more desert than you because you don't need it due to your success.

Sure it's fair. By that logic, so is this.

UC Berkeley 'Racist' Bake Sale Demonstration Sparks Outrage



So... I'm wondering, is the number of households in the top quintile increasing or decreasing? Is all that 'hoarded money' staying in the same hands, completely static? I've been looking for numbers on this but for some reason, nobody provides a "Number of households by income per year" graph out there. So someone else with better google fu can find it, I am quite certain you will find the number of upper class households growing as income mobility occurs.



Not in this nation. We're a horrible investment bet right now, but not as bad as Europe. Nope. That money is going to stay safely away till we get taxation sanity in this nation making us a better investment bet. Obama's hell at offshoring capital.



We will and his success record shows why.



Since it hasn't happened yet, they're not bringing their money back to this nation. I hope we do finally, and get that money flooding back in here. Globally mobile wealth means you can't force them to pay what you consider fair when they don't have to put up with your greed.



It's called a depression and it affects the richest the most, and the middle class the hardest. The poor barely notice a change because they're already in the safety hammock that is so well protected politically, it's as if things only get more crowded, not worse.



Unenforced laws are worse. You make thank the the Obama administration for being delinquent in prosecution of those violating the law. Regs should be streamlined and fiercely enforced. That's good business policy.



Having another bout of cretinism? Nobody is advocating that, except for hyperventilating hysterical partisan progressives hyperbole pimps fearmongering for fun and fiction.

the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

It's called the free market. Booms and busts are short lived. It's when the government meddles that they become problematically long. FDR's New Deal proved that completely. And now P-BO's Great Recession Hoax and Blame. And who was it that caused most of the civil unrest worldwide in the 1930's? Communists, Fascists and Progressives. Whoops! Who started the wars? Yipes! Who exterminated millions of 'undesirables'? Uh oh! Who experimented on minorities and sterilized the enfeebled? Oh my! Yeah, you got little reason to pretend to be superior here.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

This is why the Tea Party is feared and the Occupados are mocked.

Do you like the taste of door? Is that why you keep slamming one into your face?

I appreciate the work you put into this post, that is is not convincing and solely a defense of what you believe is clear. That it is an argument which disputes anything I posted fails miserably. Open up your browser and see the precursor events which lead to events in 1789, 1848, 1917 and the labor wars of the 1930's.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have no fear of the "big bad rich people", they are few in number and the tax schedule I've suggested is not punitive. I'd be happy to pay 90% of my annual income which exceeded (nearly) half a billion dollars? Suggesting this is punitive is absurd.

With all the money currently horded by the rich and corporate America no one is getting rich, it is NOT trickling down. Keep supporting the likes of Gov. Walker, keep cutting the taxes of the very wealthy, keep up your efforts to reduced the wages and benefits of the middle class, continue to clamor for less government oversight of banks and others in the financial 'services' industry and see where that policy gets us. Back to the Gilded Age, the era of boom and bust and finally to the civil unrest of the decade of the 30's.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

Punitive? Yep. You charge more to people for success for the access to FEWER government services. Sounds punitive to me. Like mom saying you can have less allowance than your sibling because you got A's on your report card, AND they get more desert than you because you don't need it due to your success.

Sure it's fair. By that logic, so is this.

UC Berkeley 'Racist' Bake Sale Demonstration Sparks Outrage



So... I'm wondering, is the number of households in the top quintile increasing or decreasing? Is all that 'hoarded money' staying in the same hands, completely static? I've been looking for numbers on this but for some reason, nobody provides a "Number of households by income per year" graph out there. So someone else with better google fu can find it, I am quite certain you will find the number of upper class households growing as income mobility occurs.



Not in this nation. We're a horrible investment bet right now, but not as bad as Europe. Nope. That money is going to stay safely away till we get taxation sanity in this nation making us a better investment bet. Obama's hell at offshoring capital.



We will and his success record shows why.



Since it hasn't happened yet, they're not bringing their money back to this nation. I hope we do finally, and get that money flooding back in here. Globally mobile wealth means you can't force them to pay what you consider fair when they don't have to put up with your greed.



It's called a depression and it affects the richest the most, and the middle class the hardest. The poor barely notice a change because they're already in the safety hammock that is so well protected politically, it's as if things only get more crowded, not worse.



Unenforced laws are worse. You make thank the the Obama administration for being delinquent in prosecution of those violating the law. Regs should be streamlined and fiercely enforced. That's good business policy.



Having another bout of cretinism? Nobody is advocating that, except for hyperventilating hysterical partisan progressives hyperbole pimps fearmongering for fun and fiction.



It's called the free market. Booms and busts are short lived. It's when the government meddles that they become problematically long. FDR's New Deal proved that completely. And now P-BO's Great Recession Hoax and Blame. And who was it that caused most of the civil unrest worldwide in the 1930's? Communists, Fascists and Progressives. Whoops! Who started the wars? Yipes! Who exterminated millions of 'undesirables'? Uh oh! Who experimented on minorities and sterilized the enfeebled? Oh my! Yeah, you got little reason to pretend to be superior here.

The great fear of the power elite is an uprising of the masses. Yet the power elite continue to pursue policies guaranteed to bring about the conditions which will incite the powerless.

This is why the Tea Party is feared and the Occupados are mocked.

Do you like the taste of door? Is that why you keep slamming one into your face?

I appreciate the work you put into this post, that is is not convincing and solely a defense of what you believe is clear. That it is an argument which disputes anything I posted fails miserably. Open up your browser and see the precursor events which lead to events in 1789, 1848, 1917 and the labor wars of the 1930's.

1789 France: Collectivists (early marxists/socialists/fascists) run amok. Paris mob an orgy of executions and allows for the tyrant Napoleon to rise to Emperor sparking decades of war across the world.

1848 Europe: Revolutions spawned by Karl Marx start in a dozen countries. Tens of thousands die, many countries thrown into chaos for years of civil war.

1917 Russia: Bolshevik Communists overthrow the Aristocracy engages in bloodbath creating an 80 year oligarchic tyranny that kills millions

1930s: Europe/Japan/America: Socialists and Fascists take Over and invade European and Asian nations killing tens of millions. In America, Progressives force through many communist reforms delaying economic recovery for a decade.

Your point?

 

[Wry Catcher]

My point?

The great fear of the power elite (do you need names?) is of a popular uprising. What the power elite are doing is creating the circumstances for such events.

Do you think a Communist or Socialist appears out of thin air?

Do you believe the third estate in France, the peasants throughout Europe, the serfs in Russia or the blue collar workers in America had no reason to go to the streets?

They did, and what you advocate and the power elite are putting in play are the same conditions. Denial may make you happy and smug, it can't change the future and as has been said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to relive it.

 

[Big Fitz]

My point?

The great fear of the power elite (do you need names?) is of a popular uprising. What the power elite are doing is creating the circumstances for such events.

Do you think a Communist or Socialist appears out of thin air?

Do you believe the third estate in France, the peasants throughout Europe, the serfs in Russia or the blue collar workers in America had no reason to go to the streets?

They did, and what you advocate and the power elite are putting in play are the same conditions. Denial may make you happy and smug, it can't change the future and as has been said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to relive it.

I thought it was a foundational principle of liberalism that stuff happened out of thin air. They can't connect taxation to wealth leaving a nation. They can't see welfare as encouraging people to remain poor.

What I think makes collectivists? Envy, greed, egotism and a Entitlement.

- Envy over those who have more than them.
- Greed for the possessions of others.
- Egotism in that they believe themselves a moral authority with the right to force their beliefs on others by any means necessary.
- Entitlement in that the world owes them everything they desire because they are who they are with no merit.

You're right about the elite creating conditions for revolution. It happens every time a ruling group becomes corrupt and out of control believing they are above the law, much like our government has become.

The question is, which force of revolution is going to win this time? Dependent Collectivism or Individual Independence?

And Santayana, don't assume communism is the default state OR natural progression of society. It just ain't so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My point?

The great fear of the power elite (do you need names?) is of a popular uprising. What the power elite are doing is creating the circumstances for such events.

Do you think a Communist or Socialist appears out of thin air?

Do you believe the third estate in France, the peasants throughout Europe, the serfs in Russia or the blue collar workers in America had no reason to go to the streets?

They did, and what you advocate and the power elite are putting in play are the same conditions. Denial may make you happy and smug, it can't change the future and as has been said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to relive it.

I thought it was a foundational principle of liberalism that stuff happened out of thin air. They can't connect taxation to wealth leaving a nation. They can't see welfare as encouraging people to remain poor.

What I think makes collectivists? Envy, greed, egotism and a Entitlement.

- Envy over those who have more than them.
- Greed for the possessions of others.
- Egotism in that they believe themselves a moral authority with the right to force their beliefs on others by any means necessary.
- Entitlement in that the world owes them everything they desire because they are who they are with no merit.

You're right about the elite creating conditions for revolution. It happens every time a ruling group becomes corrupt and out of control believing they are above the law, much like our government has become.

The question is, which force of revolution is going to win this time? Dependent Collectivism or Individual Independence?

And Santayana, don't assume communism is the default state OR natural progression of society. It just ain't so.

Again, you see the world through colored classes, a color which causes myopia.

Does anyone win in a revolution?

A revolution is unlikely in 21st century America. Riots, skirmishes, terror attacks are all more likely and never did I say communism was the default or natural progression of society in turmoil. I said "civil unrest", a catharsis, and emotional outburst - none of which are ideologically motivated. Though, once such actions become expressed, leaders will emerge who have an agenda.

An agenda/ideology that can manifest itself as it did in Germany or Spain, Chile or Argentina; Cuba or Russian or China in this century, or in Colonial America or France in 1789.

 

[Big Fitz]

My point?

The great fear of the power elite (do you need names?) is of a popular uprising. What the power elite are doing is creating the circumstances for such events.

Do you think a Communist or Socialist appears out of thin air?

Do you believe the third estate in France, the peasants throughout Europe, the serfs in Russia or the blue collar workers in America had no reason to go to the streets?

They did, and what you advocate and the power elite are putting in play are the same conditions. Denial may make you happy and smug, it can't change the future and as has been said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to relive it.

I thought it was a foundational principle of liberalism that stuff happened out of thin air. They can't connect taxation to wealth leaving a nation. They can't see welfare as encouraging people to remain poor.

What I think makes collectivists? Envy, greed, egotism and a Entitlement.

- Envy over those who have more than them.
- Greed for the possessions of others.
- Egotism in that they believe themselves a moral authority with the right to force their beliefs on others by any means necessary.
- Entitlement in that the world owes them everything they desire because they are who they are with no merit.

You're right about the elite creating conditions for revolution. It happens every time a ruling group becomes corrupt and out of control believing they are above the law, much like our government has become.

The question is, which force of revolution is going to win this time? Dependent Collectivism or Individual Independence?

And Santayana, don't assume communism is the default state OR natural progression of society. It just ain't so.

Again, you see the world through colored classes, a color which causes myopia.

Does anyone win in a revolution?

A revolution is unlikely in 21st century America. Riots, skirmishes, terror attacks are all more likely and never did I say communism was the default or natural progression of society in turmoil. I said "civil unrest", a catharsis, and emotional outburst - none of which are ideologically motivated. Though, once such actions become expressed, leaders will emerge who have an agenda.

An agenda/ideology and that can manifest itself as it did in Germany or Spain, Chile or Argentina; Cuba or Russian or China in this century, or in Colonial America or France in 1789.

Mr. Pott, Ms. Kettel. Ms. Kettel, Mr. Pott.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Big Fitz]

That said, the rest of your statements:

Does anyone win in a revolution?

A revolution is unlikely in 21st century America. Riots, skirmishes, terror attacks are all more likely and never did I say communism was the default or natural progression of society in turmoil. I said "civil unrest", a catharsis, and emotional outburst - none of which are ideologically motivated. Though, once such actions become expressed, leaders will emerge who have an agenda.

An agenda/ideology and that can manifest itself as it did in Germany or Spain, Chile or Argentina; Cuba or Russian or China in this century, or in Colonial America or France in 1789.

I can mostly agree with. It's implied in your statements and context you believe communism is the next natural step for this nation. But that could also be my inference of your historical preference for that political state coloring it.

 

[tjvh]

There's a difference between being fair and sympathetic and exploiting other people's success.

It's a matter of opinion I guess.

I'm of the mind that if any law is too egregious for some then it is so for all.

There's just no point of taxing people in poverty only so they can apply to a program to get it back. Cut out the middle man. Also, it's an incentive for some to get the to a point that they can willfully contribute.

Sorry, but I'm all for making people on Welfare as uncomfortable as reasonably possible when it comes to their receiving benefits. The Welfare program should be used as a bridge to finding people employment, and forcing people to be self sufficient... Not as a career option for the lazy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That said, the rest of your statements:

Does anyone win in a revolution?

A revolution is unlikely in 21st century America. Riots, skirmishes, terror attacks are all more likely and never did I say communism was the default or natural progression of society in turmoil. I said "civil unrest", a catharsis, and emotional outburst - none of which are ideologically motivated. Though, once such actions become expressed, leaders will emerge who have an agenda.

An agenda/ideology and that can manifest itself as it did in Germany or Spain, Chile or Argentina; Cuba or Russian or China in this century, or in Colonial America or France in 1789.

I can mostly agree with. It's implied in your statements and context you believe communism is the next natural step for this nation. But that could also be my inference of your historical preference for that political state coloring it.

Really? Germany, Spain, Chile and Argentina were manifestations of Fascism; Russian, Cuba and China manifestations of Communism. In fact all were forms of Authoritarianism which I do not support in any shape or form, be they authority framed in a military uniform, a clerics collar a grey suit and tie, or jeans and a 'T' shirt.

 

[Big Fitz]

That said, the rest of your statements:

Does anyone win in a revolution?

A revolution is unlikely in 21st century America. Riots, skirmishes, terror attacks are all more likely and never did I say communism was the default or natural progression of society in turmoil. I said "civil unrest", a catharsis, and emotional outburst - none of which are ideologically motivated. Though, once such actions become expressed, leaders will emerge who have an agenda.

An agenda/ideology and that can manifest itself as it did in Germany or Spain, Chile or Argentina; Cuba or Russian or China in this century, or in Colonial America or France in 1789.

I can mostly agree with. It's implied in your statements and context you believe communism is the next natural step for this nation. But that could also be my inference of your historical preference for that political state coloring it.

Really? Germany, Spain, Chile and Argentina were manifestations of Fascism; Russian, Cuba and China manifestations of Communism. In fact all were forms of Authoritarianism which I do not support in any shape or form, be they authority framed in a military uniform, a clerics collar a grey suit and tie, or jeans and a 'T' shirt.

Authoritarianism is a system. Communism is the guiding philosophy on how it was applied. That is why the leftist rainbow is true.

Liberalism = Progressivism = Communism = Marxism = Socialism = Fascism.

They all see authoritarian control over the populations for implementation of their philosophy. The methodology in how the system is applied may vary, but the end results is ALWAYS the same.