Why can't liberals find a way to create wealth without taking from successfull?

[Pho_King]

You can shove that wealth envy crap up your ass, sideways. The end result of all this is that the 1% has ended up with an even larger share of the nation's wealth, two parties filled with shameless suck-ups and a populace that will settle for less than ever, from their point of view business has never been better.

I didn't ask you that....See if you can get past your completely irrational hatred of people who have more than you do, to read for 4th-grade comprehension.

What do the wealthy get -other than "more money"- from all this hoarding you accuse them of?....What is their outcome?....What is their end game?

I already answered your question, and the answer is power. You seem to see only a group of essentially honest private citizens, I see the true political power in this country who own one-and-a-half political parties that serve their needs at the expense of the rest of us, they have power over us and no one to hold them accountable. If we cannot even tax them into contributing to the country they worked so hard to own and control we have lost, welcome to feudalism American style.

Wow. Now the OWS gimme gimme crowd does not think that the tax contributions of the rich "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own". What a bunch of lazy, covetous assholes.

 

[occupied]

Oh, so it's all a big conspiracy....I get it now.

Dismissed....Oh, and here's a nice parting gift:

Say exactly why the rich do not wield enormous unaccountable political power or STFU.

Because "the rich" aren't a monolith....You're making gross over-generalizations about and objectifying an entire group of people over the actions of a few.

Most of us know this as "bigotry".

Here's an idea...Replace "the rich" with "*******" in your little tirades and see how that all shakes out.

The one percent is a small enough group that act in a similar enough fashion that certain "generalizations" are correct. One that has always been correct is the golden rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules." We as Americans used to have a strong distaste for such monarchist attitudes, now it is the unofficial motto of American politics.

Also you are the only one here engaging in anything that resembles a tirade.

 

[occupied]

I didn't ask you that....See if you can get past your completely irrational hatred of people who have more than you do, to read for 4th-grade comprehension.

What do the wealthy get -other than "more money"- from all this hoarding you accuse them of?....What is their outcome?....What is their end game?

I already answered your question, and the answer is power. You seem to see only a group of essentially honest private citizens, I see the true political power in this country who own one-and-a-half political parties that serve their needs at the expense of the rest of us, they have power over us and no one to hold them accountable. If we cannot even tax them into contributing to the country they worked so hard to own and control we have lost, welcome to feudalism American style.

Wow. Now the OWS gimme gimme crowd does not think that the tax contributions of the rich "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own". What a bunch of lazy, covetous assholes.

Say how the super rich do not wield enormous political power and are instead a powerless persecuted minority or STFU also.

 

[g5000]

What happened, economically speaking, to America between the mid 1700s and 1912?

A poverty rate often exceeding 90 percent.

Bullshit.

I know fellas like you have some weird garden of Eden complex about the period before 1900 that can only come from never actually having studied that period. But even our friends at the Cato Institute admit there was widespread poverty.

Before 1900, being poor for most poor Americans meant, in truth,
surviving on a subsistence income, in some cases living on bread and
water. In the 1920s poverty rates fell to about 20 percent and, on the
eve of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover notoriously declared that
"we shall soon be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished in
the nation." In the 1930s poverty rates surged to above 40 percent.
Since the late 1950s poverty rates have declined by about 10
percentage points. For the past 20 years the "official" poverty rate,
depending on the state of the economy, has fluctuated between 10 and
15 percent.

Official poverty estimates for the United States at the turn of the
20th century are not available, but unofficial measures suggest that
poverty was substantially higher than today. In the late 1800s, 30 to
50 percent of families were in poverty. In 1950 the poverty rate was
about 30 percent, or twice the current level. The century-long trend in
poverty shows clear improvement.

The Progressive Era ran from the 1890s to the 1920s, during which many reforms were put in place to alleviate these conditions.


Early America was a very harsh time for the average American. Child labor, frequent financial panics, subsistence living, and so on.

It was a great time to be a robber baron, but sucked for everyone else.


Just as there are liberal extremes who want to steal all the money they can from some monolithic fantasy they call "the rich" to solve all our probelms, there are also extreme conservative fantasies which are equally delusional.

And neither of these extremes contributes much in the way of real solutions.

 

[Pho_King]

I already answered your question, and the answer is power. You seem to see only a group of essentially honest private citizens, I see the true political power in this country who own one-and-a-half political parties that serve their needs at the expense of the rest of us, they have power over us and no one to hold them accountable. If we cannot even tax them into contributing to the country they worked so hard to own and control we have lost, welcome to feudalism American style.

Wow. Now the OWS gimme gimme crowd does not think that the tax contributions of the rich "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own". What a bunch of lazy, covetous assholes.

Say how the super rich do not wield enormous political power and are instead a powerless persecuted minority or STFU also.

Of course they wield enormous political power. They have lots of money. Money that generates a huge portion of the federal tax bill. Now you explain to me how the massive tax contributions do not "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own.". Tell me, do you think a parasitic whiner like yourself "contributes" to this country more than, say, Tom Brady or lebron? I mean,they are super rich, and pay a huge amount in taxes. Apparently not enough for you to think they are contributing...... So, do you think the millions they pay out in taxes every year, in addition to the wealth they create for other people, is outweighed by your own lofty "contributions,which seem to be little more than efforts to raise awareness at your upset over some people having more than you. Answer, or stuff, change your tampon, and get a goddamn job.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you went from a 90% poverty to rate to a 30 - 50% poverty rate?

And of course poverty rates were higher then. We were just kicking of the industrial revolution that brought standard of livings much higher. Comparing poverty from then to now is apples to oranges.

The more important thing, is that progressive programs are suspect to raising standards while at the same time industry was booming. The new deal band aid is always pointed to as the "creation of the middle class", but that is hardly the truth.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Taking money away from the successful is the best way to create your own wealth. I do it every day. It's called running a business.

 

[bripat9643]

A poverty rate often exceeding 90 percent.

Bullshit.

I know fellas like you have some weird garden of Eden complex about the period before 1900 that can only come from never actually having studied that period. But even our friends at the Cato Institute admit there was widespread poverty.

Your own source doesn't support your claim. It estimates a povety rate of between 30%-50%.

The Progressive Era ran from the 1890s to the 1920s, during which many reforms were put in place to alleviate these conditions.

What "reforms" did they put in place to alleviate poverty?

Early America was a very harsh time for the average American. Child labor, frequent financial panics, subsistence living, and so on..

It was still better than any other country in the world. Why do you think immigrants arrived on our shores by the millions? You do realize that the era you are attempting to disparage was the one with the greatest rate of immigration, don't you?

It was a great time to be a robber baron, but sucked for everyone else..

Marxist twaddle. Why should anyone be surprised that life is better now than in the past? When the economy grows, life gets better over time. That's inevitable. The only way life could be worse in the past is if the economy was shrinking.

Just as there are liberal extremes who want to steal all the money they can from some monolithic fantasy they call "the rich" to solve all our probelms, there are also extreme conservative fantasies which are equally delusional..

You haven't named any so far.

And neither of these extremes contributes much in the way of real solutions.

Liberals have never solved a single problem. They have only created bigger problems.

 

[JoeNormal]

I didn't ask you that.

What is in it for the rich to screw up the economy?...What do they get out of the deal?...If they indeed have sucked all the money out of the economy, why do they need a bailout?

Do you think past your nose when you post any of your knee-jerk covetousness and hate?

It's not in their best interest to screw up the economy yet they can't seem to help it. Short term thinking and rabid self-interest now rule the day. And if the republicans have their way, whatever stabilizing elements of our economy will be eliminated in the interest of serving the " free market".

That has to be some of the most convoluted "logic" I've seen around here in some time...And that's saying something.

Wow.

Convoluted? It seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe you just don't like the message.

 

[Oddball]

Say exactly why the rich do not wield enormous unaccountable political power or STFU.

Because "the rich" aren't a monolith....You're making gross over-generalizations about and objectifying an entire group of people over the actions of a few.

Most of us know this as "bigotry".

Here's an idea...Replace "the rich" with "*******" in your little tirades and see how that all shakes out.

The one percent is a small enough group that act in a similar enough fashion that certain "generalizations" are correct. One that has always been correct is the golden rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules." We as Americans used to have a strong distaste for such monarchist attitudes, now it is the unofficial motto of American politics.

Also you are the only one here engaging in anything that resembles a tirade.

I've heard every word of your shameless bigotry and poorly veiled avarice.

"The 1%" is yet another completely bigoted meme, that objectifies people so small-minded bitter little wretches like you can rationalize your irrational hatred...Like I said, exchange "the 1%" with "Jews" and give us a report as to what you see in the mirror.

 

[bripat9643]

Taking money away from the successful is the best way to create your own wealth. I do it every day. It's called running a business.

There's a difference between taking and voluntary exchange. Liberals keep trying to obscure that fact.

 

[Oddball]

It's not in their best interest to screw up the economy yet they can't seem to help it. Short term thinking and rabid self-interest now rule the day. And if the republicans have their way, whatever stabilizing elements of our economy will be eliminated in the interest of serving the " free market".

That has to be some of the most convoluted "logic" I've seen around here in some time...And that's saying something.

Wow.

Convoluted? It seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe you just don't like the message.

Or maybe I'm not such a simpleton to think that people smart enough to accumulate all that they have, are so stupid that they ruin the economy that made such accumulation possible, while broke dick self-professed geniuses on an interweb message board can see it all so clearly.

 

[occupied]

Wow. Now the OWS gimme gimme crowd does not think that the tax contributions of the rich "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own". What a bunch of lazy, covetous assholes.

Say how the super rich do not wield enormous political power and are instead a powerless persecuted minority or STFU also.

Of course they wield enormous political power. They have lots of money. Money that generates a huge portion of the federal tax bill. Now you explain to me how the massive tax contributions do not "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own.". Tell me, do you think a parasitic whiner like yourself "contributes" to this country more than, say, Tom Brady or lebron? I mean,they are super rich, and pay a huge amount in taxes. Apparently not enough for you to think they are contributing...... So, do you think the millions they pay out in taxes every year, in addition to the wealth they create for other people, is outweighed by your own lofty "contributions,which seem to be little more than efforts to raise awareness at your upset over some people having more than you. Answer, or stuff, change your tampon, and get a goddamn job.

I wish I could have a discussion on holding them economically and politically accountable that matches the scale of their control without being called a jobless loser but it seems the only counter that people such as yourself can muster. Unaccountable, unchecked political power is a threat to freedom, anyone should be able to grasp that concept, yet so many are ecstatic when they once again show that they are all but untouchable.

 

[occupied]

Because "the rich" aren't a monolith....You're making gross over-generalizations about and objectifying an entire group of people over the actions of a few.

Most of us know this as "bigotry".

Here's an idea...Replace "the rich" with "*******" in your little tirades and see how that all shakes out.

The one percent is a small enough group that act in a similar enough fashion that certain "generalizations" are correct. One that has always been correct is the golden rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules." We as Americans used to have a strong distaste for such monarchist attitudes, now it is the unofficial motto of American politics.

Also you are the only one here engaging in anything that resembles a tirade.

I've heard every word of your shameless bigotry and poorly veiled avarice.

"The 1%" is yet another completely bigoted meme, that objectifies people so small-minded bitter little wretches like you can rationalize your irrational hatred...Like I said, exchange "the 1%" with "Jews" and give us a report as to what you see in the mirror.

Are you saying that the 1% are a persecuted minority? ROFLMFAO (not really).

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats hate successful people. Mitt Romney is successful, therefore he should not be president only failures can be president. Vote for failure, vote obama.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Say how the super rich do not wield enormous political power and are instead a powerless persecuted minority or STFU also.

Of course they wield enormous political power. They have lots of money. Money that generates a huge portion of the federal tax bill. Now you explain to me how the massive tax contributions do not "contribute to the country they worked so hard to own.". Tell me, do you think a parasitic whiner like yourself "contributes" to this country more than, say, Tom Brady or lebron? I mean,they are super rich, and pay a huge amount in taxes. Apparently not enough for you to think they are contributing...... So, do you think the millions they pay out in taxes every year, in addition to the wealth they create for other people, is outweighed by your own lofty "contributions,which seem to be little more than efforts to raise awareness at your upset over some people having more than you. Answer, or stuff, change your tampon, and get a goddamn job.

I wish I could have a discussion on holding them economically and politically accountable that matches the scale of their control without being called a jobless loser but it seems the only counter that people such as yourself can muster. Unaccountable, unchecked political power is a threat to freedom, anyone should be able to grasp that concept, yet so many are ecstatic when they once again show that they are all but untouchable.

Maybe if you squared the blame properly, people wouldn't ride your ass for being an envious puke. Rich people didn't steal or power grab anything that big govt. didn't give them. It is the govt. that goes unchecked in making laws, regulations, subsidies, etc...that foster monopolies (or oligarchies if you prefer) that got us where we are in this corporatism.

The rich played the game as it was laid out for them. You've got your blame wrong and that's why those who can see whats going on dont blame the rich, they blame the govt.

You want more govt. to hold themselves accountable or tax the rich. if you can not see this log jammed in your eye, then, you'll have to keep getting rode for being an envious moron. Just being honest.

 

[g5000]

Bullshit.

I know fellas like you have some weird garden of Eden complex about the period before 1900 that can only come from never actually having studied that period. But even our friends at the Cato Institute admit there was widespread poverty.

Your own source doesn't support your claim. It estimates a povety rate of between 30%-50%.

I said often, not constant. I sourced the 90 percent figure in another topic here a few months ago, but am unable to find it right now.

Regardless, even 50% is intolerable.

[What "reforms" did they put in place to alleviate poverty?

The mitigation of political corruption, women's suffrage, public education reforms which resulted in a massive growth in the number of schools, the Seventeenth Amendment for the direct election of Senators instead of them being chosen by cronies, food and drug safety legislation.

It was still better than any other country in the world. Why do you think immigrants arrived on our shores by the millions? You do realize that the era you are attempting to disparage was the one with the greatest rate of immigration, don't you?

America has been the greatest country in the world since Day One. However, life was no bowl of cherries for an immgrant once they landed here.

Just as there are liberal extremes who want to steal all the money they can from some monolithic fantasy they call "the rich" to solve all our probelms, there are also extreme conservative fantasies which are equally delusional..

You haven't named any so far.

I am constantly pointing them out on this forum. On a daily basis, practically. Like the "we have no poor" argument being made by some nutjobs for the past few weeks. And the Voter ID "solution" looking for a problem.

 

[Katzndogz]

The one percent is a small enough group that act in a similar enough fashion that certain "generalizations" are correct. One that has always been correct is the golden rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules." We as Americans used to have a strong distaste for such monarchist attitudes, now it is the unofficial motto of American politics.

Also you are the only one here engaging in anything that resembles a tirade.

I've heard every word of your shameless bigotry and poorly veiled avarice.

"The 1%" is yet another completely bigoted meme, that objectifies people so small-minded bitter little wretches like you can rationalize your irrational hatred...Like I said, exchange "the 1%" with "Jews" and give us a report as to what you see in the mirror.

Are you saying that the 1% are a persecuted minortiy, ROFLMFAO.

Do you realize what you just said?

The 1% can be outvoted by 2%. Not 99%, but 2%. The 1% is the only group in the US that exists basically at the mercy of everyone else. That's how California got to be California. The 1% have only one weapon. They can leave. It is a devastating weapon. When the 1% leave, they take not only their wealth but their enterprise with them. For further clarification of how it works see New York City now being reproduced in Maryland.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There's a difference between taking and voluntary exchange. Liberals keep trying to obscure that fact.

Eh, not really. Forcing a sale is a very common business practice.

 

[g5000]

The one percent is a small enough group that act in a similar enough fashion that certain "generalizations" are correct.

By all means, please make some generalizations about the 1 percent that justifies taking more of their money.

And for reference, the top one percent income is $380,000 a year and up.

I would like to know what evil rat bastard thing a business owner who makes $380,000 a year is doing that makes it okay to take more of his money from him.