Who NEEDS This Kind Of Income?

[blastoff]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Complete idiocy.

But if it ever gets to that I want to be on record that whatever the gov't decides for me, it ain't enough. I'm not giving up the nice cushy lifestyle I've earned. I've been several rungs down the economic ladder and it's a whole hell of a lot nicer farther up top. So for those who don't have what they want and desire some of mine and others, tough shit.

frank loves sarcasm

If that's the case, my apology to him.

 

[xsited1]

Who NEEDS This Kind Of Income?

 

[Oddball]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?

How many homes can you live-in, at once?

I dunno....You suppose you could get an answer to that question from the likes of SanFran Nan, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, Algore, John Edwards, Charlie Rangel or any other of the elite moocher class?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?

How many homes can you live-in, at once?

I dunno....You suppose you could get an answer to that question from the likes of SanFran Nan, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, Algore, John Edwards, Charlie Rangel or any other of the elite moocher class?

You're not very clever Odd-dude, though I suppose you keep copies of all your pedestrain prose thinking it is. Sarcasm and prosaic personal attacks are beneath the truly thoughtful though a common tool for those whose ideas are built on weak foundations.

I've posted my thoughts on matters of substance, and you and others who hold radical notions of what a free society should look like never do. Too much wealth held by too few is the bane to a republic, a free society where the hoi polloi delegate responsibility to elected officals. It's a simple concept, one rejected by you and boediicca and a few others with sarcasm and hyperbole. Either your too stupid to understand the consequences of too much to too few or hold an ideology wherein the goal is to transform our republic into an oligarchy run for and by the very wealthy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many symphonies did Mozart really have to compose?

Hoe many sculptures did Michelangelo really have to carve?

Paul McCartney should have been content to have one Number 1 hit,why was he so greedy?

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit!!!

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?

How many homes can you live-in, at once?

I dunno....You suppose you could get an answer to that question from the likes of SanFran Nan, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, Algore, John Edwards, Charlie Rangel or any other of the elite moocher class?

You're not very clever Odd-dude, though I suppose you keep copies of all your pedestrain prose thinking it is. Sarcasm and prosaic personal attacks are beneath the truly thoughtful though a common tool for those whose ideas are built on weak foundations.

I've posted my thoughts on matters of substance, and you and others who hold radical notions of what a free society should look like never do. Too much wealth held by too few is the bane to a republic, a free society where the hoi polloi delegate responsibility to elected officals. It's a simple concept, one rejected by you and boediicca and a few others with sarcasm and hyperbole. Either your too stupid to understand the consequences of too much to too few or hold an ideology wherein the goal is to transform our republic into an oligarchy run for and by the very wealthy.

Your brain droppings of Marxist boilerplate hardly constitute anything remotely resembling thought.

Fact remains that "obscene wealth" and oligarchy are just fine with nitwits like you, as long as the possessors of that wealth and oligarchs happen to have the "correct" political affiliation.

Hack.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you advocating going back to a Monarchy?

Noblesse Oblige refers to the responsibilities of hereditary nobility, and are the (voluntary) price of extreme privilege. This hardly applies to middle class families in the U.S.

Are you intentionally dense? Nobelesse Oblige is a concept of the, yes voluntary, cost of privilege. Maybe a concrete thinker might believe the concept is obsolete, but some with great wealth, Bill Gates comes to mind, still feel an obligation to others.

I actually believe you simply have adopted an ideology without foundaton, you seem unable to defend your opinions without attacking me or others personally, using sarcasm or cliches.

As I've asked you and others for maybe the hundreth time, what policy(s) do you support which will reduce unemployment, one of our most crucial problems today?

I believe your head is wedged so firmly up your ass that you can lick your sternum.

And yet, like a broken clock, you actually posted something correct. Noblesse Oblige entails a "Voluntary" sense of duty.

That is not at all equivalent to the government seizing (with the implicit gun point) middle class incomes. By all means, donate your own money to the causes you choose. But don't advocate for higher taxes on others with some twisted Orwellian Noblesse Oblige sentiment. It rings hollow, even by your own corrupt definition of "harmony".

See my response to Odd-dude above for a response to your effort to deflect from a substantive issue.
That said, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thanks, the more you use phrases from my recent contributions the more I'm sure I'm able to convey doubt to even those who believe they know immutable truths. It is the joy that this MB provides, knowing the seeds of rationality breakthrough the barrier of willfull ignorance.

 

[Oddball]

Are you intentionally dense? Nobelesse Oblige is a concept of the, yes voluntary, cost of privilege. Maybe a concrete thinker might believe the concept is obsolete, but some with great wealth, Bill Gates comes to mind, still feel an obligation to others.

I actually believe you simply have adopted an ideology without foundaton, you seem unable to defend your opinions without attacking me or others personally, using sarcasm or cliches.

As I've asked you and others for maybe the hundreth time, what policy(s) do you support which will reduce unemployment, one of our most crucial problems today?

I believe your head is wedged so firmly up your ass that you can lick your sternum.

And yet, like a broken clock, you actually posted something correct. Noblesse Oblige entails a "Voluntary" sense of duty.

That is not at all equivalent to the government seizing (with the implicit gun point) middle class incomes. By all means, donate your own money to the causes you choose. But don't advocate for higher taxes on others with some twisted Orwellian Noblesse Oblige sentiment. It rings hollow, even by your own corrupt definition of "harmony".

See my response to Odd-dude above for a response to your effort to deflect from a substantive issue.
That said, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thanks, the more you use phrases from my recent contributions the more I'm sure I'm able to convey doubt to even those who believe they know immutable truths. It is the joy that this MB provides, knowing the seeds of rationality breakthrough the barrier of willfull ignorance.

A shame none of that has broken through your cement head.

 

[AllieBaba]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!​

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??​

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?​

How many homes can you live-in, at once?​

Is it possible to be addicted to cash?? And...if so...why should the U.S. population be expected to support their addiction???​

​

What complete asinine twittery.

You can live in, drive, fill your stomach, fill your bank, with exactly as much as you feel like because we have the right to pursue happiness as we please as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing so.

If you don't like it, move to...hell, I don't know. All the commie countries have wised up. Cuba, I guess. Of course, any country that pretends to abide by such foolishness is a corrupt tyranny, but that's okay, you can go anyway.

 

[boedicca]

If a bank robber were to acquire great wealth robbing it would be wrong to all except other bank robbers, if a corporate board can redistribute its wealth and earnings to the top, it is right for some people, if the government redistributes society's wealth to the members of that society through work and other projects it is wrong to some, it seems like it really depends on where you stand in all these pictures. Surely Ken Lay or Bernie Madoff deserved their great wealth, surely.

Wow. Talk about the Heartbreak of Economic, Legal, and Moral Illiteracy Combined!

These three scenarios are not at all equivalent.

Theft does not equal private decisions regarding legally and ethically earned compensation.

Private decisions regarding legally and ethically earned compensation are not the same as the government using its power to mug one citizen for the benefit of another.

Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff were both charged with crimes. One died while appealing his conviction; the other is in prison after pleading guilty. If you think anyone who defends the concept of private compensation decisions and opposed government transfers of wealth believes Lay and Madoff deserved their great wealth, then please provide quotes with valid links.

 

[FuelRod]

How much money is enough?

"Just a little more." - John D. Rockefeller

 

[boedicca]

Are you intentionally dense? Nobelesse Oblige is a concept of the, yes voluntary, cost of privilege. Maybe a concrete thinker might believe the concept is obsolete, but some with great wealth, Bill Gates comes to mind, still feel an obligation to others.

I actually believe you simply have adopted an ideology without foundaton, you seem unable to defend your opinions without attacking me or others personally, using sarcasm or cliches.

As I've asked you and others for maybe the hundreth time, what policy(s) do you support which will reduce unemployment, one of our most crucial problems today?

I believe your head is wedged so firmly up your ass that you can lick your sternum.

And yet, like a broken clock, you actually posted something correct. Noblesse Oblige entails a "Voluntary" sense of duty.

That is not at all equivalent to the government seizing (with the implicit gun point) middle class incomes. By all means, donate your own money to the causes you choose. But don't advocate for higher taxes on others with some twisted Orwellian Noblesse Oblige sentiment. It rings hollow, even by your own corrupt definition of "harmony".

See my response to Odd-dude above for a response to your effort to deflect from a substantive issue.
That said, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thanks, the more you use phrases from my recent contributions the more I'm sure I'm able to convey doubt to even those who believe they know immutable truths. It is the joy that this MB provides, knowing the seeds of rationality breakthrough the barrier of willfull ignorance.

See Oddball's response to you in post #46.

*snicker*

Marxist brain droppings. lolz.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe your head is wedged so firmly up your ass that you can lick your sternum.

And yet, like a broken clock, you actually posted something correct. Noblesse Oblige entails a "Voluntary" sense of duty.

That is not at all equivalent to the government seizing (with the implicit gun point) middle class incomes. By all means, donate your own money to the causes you choose. But don't advocate for higher taxes on others with some twisted Orwellian Noblesse Oblige sentiment. It rings hollow, even by your own corrupt definition of "harmony".

See my response to Odd-dude above for a response to your effort to deflect from a substantive issue.
That said, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thanks, the more you use phrases from my recent contributions the more I'm sure I'm able to convey doubt to even those who believe they know immutable truths. It is the joy that this MB provides, knowing the seeds of rationality breakthrough the barrier of willfull ignorance.

See Oddball's response to you in post #46.

*snicker*

Marxist brain droppings. lolz.

Not surprised you would laud Odd-dude since you are two of a kind. Ever able to offer a personal attack even when such a comment is beyond the pale. Finding "Marxist brain droppings" clever or funny when it is clearly more nonsense is one more example of your dishonesty.

By the way, what I do with my money is none of your business unless it impacts you. You have no standing to ask who or whether I donate to the poor. What, for example, is given to a member of the Supreme Court in way of 'gifts' is your and my business, for decisons made by that body impact all Americans, born and yet to be born.

[no odd-dude, this is not a non sequitur, your usual response to anything you can't seem to understand]

Mr. Justice Thomas maybe influenced by monied interests, and that should concern even those who believe Citizens United v. FEC was a just and honest opinion, which I do not.

(If corporations are to be treated as individuals, why are they taxed differently?)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

who was resorting to biased and dishonest attacks again?

 

[boedicca]

By the way, what I do with my money is none of your business unless it impacts you.

If what you do with your money is your business, then you are quite the hypocrite for advocating that the government take money away from other people.

Quelle Nonsurprise.

 

[blastoff]

Okay, I'll admit it. Money isn't everything. But it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place IMO.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

who was resorting to biased and dishonest attacks again?

As for bias I plead guilty; dishonest it is not. "it's all about personal responsibility" is a justification for an ideology of callous disregard for the poor, aged, infirm and children.

Bigotry is obvious, the intolerance for ideas which conflict with there own is constantly attacked with pejoratives, libtard, demorat, commie; and those who look different are attacked simply for the color of their skin, not judged by the content of their character.

I admit a bias and an intolerance for the parrots on this message board who seem unable to explain with clear statements the implication of thier ideology. My bias is not based on their skin color or the God they worship but on there dishonesty. With few exceptions the racists on this board use code to convey their irrational hate.

As for avarice, the lust for money and power is the stuff of writing for all of human history - generally condemned as a deadly sin. The Republican Party has made lust for money and power into a virtue, something rather unique in human history which ultimately lead to the fall of those who like Midas were fixated on 'gold'.

Holding these views doesn't make me a Marxist as the Odd one asserts, though lacking the education and critical thinking skills he and others of the New Right characterize anyone who questions their ideololgy as such. A sure sign of bigotry and willful ignorance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Okay, I'll admit it. Money isn't everything. But it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place IMO.

Better than good health?

 

[Wry Catcher]

By the way, what I do with my money is none of your business unless it impacts you.

If what you do with your money is your business, then you are quite the hypocrite for advocating that the government take money away from other people.

Quelle Nonsurprise.

The Government of the U.S. is a government of and for the people. The 16th Amendment to our Constitution authorized "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived...".

It is legal for the U.S. Government to do so, you have no standing to ask what I make and what I spent it on, Capito?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If a bank robber were to acquire great wealth robbing it would be wrong to all except other bank robbers, if a corporate board can redistribute its wealth and earnings to the top, it is right for some people, if the government redistributes society's wealth to the members of that society through work and other projects it is wrong to some, it seems like it really depends on where you stand in all these pictures. Surely Ken Lay or Bernie Madoff deserved their great wealth, surely.

Wow. Talk about the Heartbreak of Economic, Legal, and Moral Illiteracy Combined!

These three scenarios are not at all equivalent.

Theft does not equal private decisions regarding legally and ethically earned compensation.

Private decisions regarding legally and ethically earned compensation are not the same as the government using its power to mug one citizen for the benefit of another.

Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff were both charged with crimes. One died while appealing his conviction; the other is in prison after pleading guilty. If you think anyone defends the concept of private compensation decisions and opposed government transfers of wealth believes Lay and Madoff deserved their great wealth, then please provide quotes with valid links.

The tragedy is that the Marxist cancels your vote