Class War Illustrated

[Oddball]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

This is such bullshit....Instead of addressing the issues you repackage it into a "people should keep their own money and you want to take it" strawman to make it easier for you to fight it.

Nothing is wrong to the conservative...The way things are are the way things should be. If the rich are raping our anuses numb....Hey, they deserve it...Poor people should make it on their own, but rich people deserve the additional help.

I believe that you just yammered something about strawmen?

I'll watch this thread to see if ANY CONSERVATIVE sees a problem with cutting early childhood learning programs so that we can cover tax cuts on someones estate. Early childhood learning for christ sakes....

Dam kids should learn to do for themselves! That's conservativism....The least amonst us are expected to do the most. The kids, the homeless, the poor, learning programs, healthy eating programs, medicare, medicade everything must go....But a 2-5% tax increase for the rich is sooooooo wrong. 2 f*ckin percent!!!!!

Adding non sequitur to the strawman doesn't make your argument any more coherent.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Without a social safety net, we're Rwanda. True story.

Oh really? So we were Rwanda before FDR? Is that your premise?

 

[Cuyo]

Occams razor suggests otherwise... Follow the money. The money supply is artificially inflated during bubbles (as one who 'understands economics,' you should already be aware of this) and the haves have an opportunity to take a preposterous amount of it during this time; the supply is great enough that nobody really notices. Then suddenly the burst... And whose left holding the bag? The rich only lose wealth on paper. The poor are the ones who actually lose their jobs and often, their stuff.

You know what else looks good on paper?


"400 people control $1.3 TRILLION of OUR money. Its OUR national resource."

Let me ask you, and your economic messiah about the elephant in the roon:

How many of those 400 people are static?

They're just sitting there, holding on to money, right?

Or do they have businesses, and investments, and charities that put people to work and generate other businesses, investments, and charities?

Moore is a LOT smarter than you, because he can get you to believe whatever he wants you to believe

For you are one of those who don't understand your own successes and failures.

You still think they're all my fault.

What's your point? And who the hell mentioned Moore (who, you are correct by the way, is smarter than myself, or you)?

When there's a demand for something, it will be produced. We've had production, in fact as a larger percentage of our economy, as long as we've been a country. But all the sudden you think it will disappear if the rich lose their tax breaks?

Taxes on the rich are as low now as they've ever been, and the economy is in the toilet. Why? Because there's no consumers. That's what you don't grasp. As the middle class slowly, but noticeably, becomes the working poor, they don't have the money to spend. All the 'Investement' money in the world doesn't help manufacturing if nobody's got any money to spend on the product.

 

[WillowTree]

He's pointing out (correctly) the direction our discourse is being pushed. Rather than so immediately calling it 'crap,' you should take an honest look at it and revisit who the dopes getting your votes are really advocating for. It's actually quite obvious - Not you.

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

I also understand that most humans are too petty, too lazy, and too jealous to understand the basic concepts that drive their own success and failures.

Poverty in America is increasing, and the chasm between them and the rich is growing larger. Why? Is there some genetic reason so many more people are being petty, lazy, and jealous than they were in years past?

Occams razor suggests otherwise... Follow the money. The money supply is artificially inflated during bubbles (as one who 'understands economics,' you should already be aware of this) and the haves have an opportunity to take a preposterous amount of it during this time; the supply is great enough that nobody really notices. Then suddenly the burst... And whose left holding the bag? The rich only lose wealth on paper. The poor are the ones who actually lose their jobs and often, their stuff.

Illegal Immigration. dunderhead, Illegal immigration.

 

[spectrumc01]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

Private property. What a joke that is. You don't really own your "Private property", to prove this don't pay your taxes and see how long it stays yours. "Private property" would infer you can do with it what you want, but that is false also. You can do to your property what the government zoning laws say you can do.

 

[Cuyo]

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

I also understand that most humans are too petty, too lazy, and too jealous to understand the basic concepts that drive their own success and failures.

Poverty in America is increasing, and the chasm between them and the rich is growing larger. Why? Is there some genetic reason so many more people are being petty, lazy, and jealous than they were in years past?

Occams razor suggests otherwise... Follow the money. The money supply is artificially inflated during bubbles (as one who 'understands economics,' you should already be aware of this) and the haves have an opportunity to take a preposterous amount of it during this time; the supply is great enough that nobody really notices. Then suddenly the burst... And whose left holding the bag? The rich only lose wealth on paper. The poor are the ones who actually lose their jobs and often, their stuff.

Illegal Immigration. dunderhead, Illegal immigration.

I doubt a single person in this thread will stick up for that gem of idiocy.

 

[Trajan]

He's pointing out (correctly) the direction our discourse is being pushed. Rather than so immediately calling it 'crap,' you should take an honest look at it and revisit who the dopes getting your votes are really advocating for. It's actually quite obvious - Not you.

As one who understands economics, I am a staunch advocate for incentive to investment. Tax incentives for the wealthy are one of the smartest things any economy can ever do.

I also understand that most humans are too petty, too lazy, and too jealous to understand the basic concepts that drive their own success and failures.

Poverty in America is increasing, and the chasm between them and the rich is growing larger. Why? Is there some genetic reason so many more people are being petty, lazy, and jealous than they were in years past?

Occams razor suggests otherwise... Follow the money. The money supply is artificially inflated during bubbles (as one who 'understands economics,' you should already be aware of this) and the haves have an opportunity to take a preposterous amount of it during this time; the supply is great enough that nobody really notices. Then suddenly the burst... And whose left holding the bag? The rich only lose wealth on paper. The poor are the ones who actually lose their jobs and often, their stuff.

when has it ever been different?

the question is, is the society in chains, that is is each follwoing generation at a stand still in their 'standard of living' or their ability to gather more of what they want, upward mobility etc. , and the answer is- no.

ask yourself or better yet google movement among the poor to middle class to 'rich' and please no Rockefellers or Hilton please that now what we really are discussing an thats not a fair representation imho, anyway, the economy lapses and except for the uber rich absent a calamity of trust management or a string of really poor investments, the movement is upwards not downwards.

 

[Cuyo]

Without a social safety net, we're Rwanda. True story.

Oh really? So we were Rwanda before FDR? Is that your premise?

Alright hit the brakes there, Friedman. That's not what I said... But, in a sense, yes.

Of course I'm being facetious when I talk about Rwanda. Rwanda is poor. Far more poor than we ever were or hopefully ever will be.

We always had advocates for the working class, even before FDR - Jackson and TR being prominent examples. But in a sense, yes, the 'Middle class' did not become nearly the prevalent majority it's been in recent years until FDR. Now discourse is running away from FDR, and the middle class is shrinking. Coincidence?

 

[WillowTree]

Poverty in America is increasing, and the chasm between them and the rich is growing larger. Why? Is there some genetic reason so many more people are being petty, lazy, and jealous than they were in years past?

Occams razor suggests otherwise... Follow the money. The money supply is artificially inflated during bubbles (as one who 'understands economics,' you should already be aware of this) and the haves have an opportunity to take a preposterous amount of it during this time; the supply is great enough that nobody really notices. Then suddenly the burst... And whose left holding the bag? The rich only lose wealth on paper. The poor are the ones who actually lose their jobs and often, their stuff.

Illegal Immigration. dunderhead, Illegal immigration.

I doubt a single person in this thread will stick up for that gem of idiocy.

See? That's why we call you dummies. Illegal immigransts cost lots of money, they are poor they are uneducated they are ten to 20 million strong, they are cheap labor,, so of course the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,, but you just keep on advocating for illegal immigration and ten years from now you'll still be stupid. Stupid.where are the jobs?? where are the jobs??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Remind us again how you are not an anarchist, reverend?

Now there wouldn't be an ulterior motive in your pretty little Table O' Crap, would there?

Yeah.....whatta concept......

*

 

[Cuyo]

Illegal Immigration. dunderhead, Illegal immigration.

I doubt a single person in this thread will stick up for that gem of idiocy.

See? That's why we call you dummies. Illegal immigransts cost lots of money, they are poor they are uneducated they are ten to 20 million strong, they are cheap labor,, so of course the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,, but you just keep on advocating for illegal immigration and ten years from now you'll still be stupid. Stupid.where are the jobs?? where are the jobs??

In Asia. I've not 'advocated for illegal immigration,' however, a person living in a society is a provider and a consumer. Illegal immigration is no more to blame than population growth in general.

Get real, you're out of your element here.

 

[Oddball]

Without a social safety net, we're Rwanda. True story.

Oh really? So we were Rwanda before FDR? Is that your premise?

Alright hit the brakes there, Friedman. That's not what I said... But, in a sense, yes.

Of course I'm being facetious when I talk about Rwanda. Rwanda is poor. Far more poor than we ever were or hopefully ever will be.

We always had advocates for the working class, even before FDR - Jackson and TR being prominent examples. But in a sense, yes, the 'Middle class' did not become nearly the prevalent majority it's been in recent years until FDR. Now discourse is running away from FDR, and the middle class is shrinking. Coincidence?

They were advocates for the ruling class, you fool.

Federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed from a scant 3% of GDP before the onset of the progressive kleptocracy, to 20+% today.

Yet all we hear about is how the rich iz gettin' richer and the po be po-er.

Coincidence?...I think not.

 

[Oddball]

Your strawman is a failure, just like your beloved welfare state.

Profound.

It has the added benefit of being true.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh really? So we were Rwanda before FDR? Is that your premise?

Alright hit the brakes there, Friedman. That's not what I said... But, in a sense, yes.

Of course I'm being facetious when I talk about Rwanda. Rwanda is poor. Far more poor than we ever were or hopefully ever will be.

We always had advocates for the working class, even before FDR - Jackson and TR being prominent examples. But in a sense, yes, the 'Middle class' did not become nearly the prevalent majority it's been in recent years until FDR. Now discourse is running away from FDR, and the middle class is shrinking. Coincidence?

They were advocates for the ruling class, you fool.

Federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed from a scant 3% of GDP before the onset of the progressive kleptocracy, to 20+% today.

Yet all we hear about is how the rich iz gettin' richer and the po be po-er.

Coincidence?...I think not.

We know you don't like federal spending, but it's not really the topic being discussed here.

 

[whitehall]

The basis for the left's encouragement of class warfare is that all money belongs to the government and they only let us keep it for a little while. "Tax Breaks" encourage businesses to stay in the US and expand. The corporate money that isn't confiscated circulates in the economy. Useless and redundant government programs on the other hand come out of the taxpayer's pockets. Would you trust Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid to sell you a used car? Don't forget Congress couldn't even run an in-house post office without stealing from it. The congressional caffeteria went broke from mismanagement. Why on earth would we trust them with a blank check signed by our grandkids?

 

[Trajan]

Alright hit the brakes there, Friedman. That's not what I said... But, in a sense, yes.

Of course I'm being facetious when I talk about Rwanda. Rwanda is poor. Far more poor than we ever were or hopefully ever will be.

We always had advocates for the working class, even before FDR - Jackson and TR being prominent examples. But in a sense, yes, the 'Middle class' did not become nearly the prevalent majority it's been in recent years until FDR. Now discourse is running away from FDR, and the middle class is shrinking. Coincidence?

They were advocates for the ruling class, you fool.

Federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed from a scant 3% of GDP before the onset of the progressive kleptocracy, to 20+% today.

Yet all we hear about is how the rich iz gettin' richer and the po be po-er.

Coincidence?...I think not.

We know you don't like federal spending, but it's not really the topic being discussed here.

sure it is, the productive part with their labor for the collective as distributed by the gov..

There comes a time where in the sloth and mismanagement and politics denigrates the tip of the spear value taken which kicks in the search for more specie or labor created by the individual, there is always a struggle between a guy selling strawberry's on the side of the road as to what he must part with and what the guy who employs 10 people parts with.

there is an upper limit politicians never consider, the limit is what a human will on average across us the whole pop. lib con libertarian will part with absent real push back for 'others', I'd say that limit is approx. 20-30 % somewhere in the middle, and close to the higher and lower threshold inside those brackets depending on your political or social views.

When you get outside those brackets; those beneath the income avg. giving less, getting more and at the same time, those above the avg. income parting with more, the push back grows.The productive sect above the mean will resist.

the gov. has horribly mangled this formula by virtue of its attempts at social engineering.


Sarkozy is introducing a bill in France to correct the tax code in that NO ONE will ever have to surrender more than 50% of their yearly income.....50%..gee whiz. .

 

[Oddball]

Sarkozy is introducing a bill in France to correct the tax code in that NO ONE will ever have to surrender more than 50% of their yearly income.....50%..gee whiz. .

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

 

[Trajan]

Sarkozy is introducing a bill in France to correct the tax code in that NO ONE will ever have to surrender more than 50% of their yearly income.....50%..gee whiz. .

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

thats why that 3% is really the core issue, the more they take the more they MUST have, they will spend every single dime they can get their hands on.

Cowboy Poetry? For god sakes.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

 

[Cuyo]

Sarkozy is introducing a bill in France to correct the tax code in that NO ONE will ever have to surrender more than 50% of their yearly income.....50%..gee whiz. .

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

 

[Mini 14]

The serfs had it easy....All the King demanded was 1/3.

They won't see it, depsite all of the vaunted progressive claims to some special empathy, there is a boundary that the motivated individual holds, in that they simply won't work harder, to lose .60 cents on ever dollar there after.

And could I not then argue to you, that by that person not working for that extra 40c on the dollar, the demand will still exist and a smaller firm will then fill that need? Could not I argue that giving the incentive to that same person, he, being the more powerful firm, would then push the would-be competitor into unprofitability, ultimately poverty?

Consider a 2-person economy where those two aforementioned firms are the only participants. When the second would-be competitor is pushed out of the game entirely, who still exists to be a customer for the more powerful firm?

I think there's a healthy middle ground that we are not pursuing.

That all depends on whether a smaller firm has the resources to invest.

But don't let that hinder your argument, Mr. Keynes.