Class War Illustrated

[mnbasketball]

Here's a little bit of information, take a few minutes and look at it. Now I can tell you right now it's not from a left wing site so it might make a little sense if you read it.

From what I have seen since I came on this board is a pure hate for the other side and any information is just swiped away if it can have any connection to one side or the other. So I try to get information that isn't put out by one side or the other.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

well foxfrye it's like this, everything is about two things, providing a work force and paying for things that a workforce needs to survive. The only thing the govt does for the citizen is make sure those who would abuse the country and its people can't or are held accountable.


Tell me anything that the govt does beyond helping the poor that doesn't help provide what is needed for business to operate! What is done just for the purpose of helping a citizen that doesn't end up providing help for the business community or has been created to oversee what business does because they can't be trusted?

How does it help business to send millions of taxpayer dollars to Venezuela or many dozens of other countries that intend us no good now. We started sending foreign aid to Venezuela decades ago and nobody seems to remember why but we've never stopped. Do you think American business might be able to do more for Americans if they didn't have that money taxed away from them but had it to save, invest, grow their businesses, and hire people?

How does it help business to refuse to seal the border but require Americans to take care of, feed, clothe, provide medical care for, and educate everybody who sneaks into this country? Would Americans benefit more if that money wasn't taxed away from them so that they had it to buy cars and appliances and houses and other products?

How does it help business to make people easy in poverty so that many become so dependent on government that they become hardcore unemployable generation after generation? Wouldn't we all benefit with a more thriving economy if those people were instead led or driven out of poverty and were persuaded to earn their living and prosper so that they would contribute to the economy instead of sucking a whole lot out of it?

How does it benefit business to so tax it, regulate it, restrict it, force it, require it in this country that the only way to show a decent profit is to set up shop overseas?

And again I ask you:

What makes you think that Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do to prosper should be responsible in any way to support Citizen B who chose not to do that?

I've neve been able to get a liberal to honestly answer that question. Maybe you'll be the first.

 

[cutter]

well foxfrye it's like this, everything is about two things, providing a work force and paying for things that a workforce needs to survive. The only thing the govt does for the citizen is make sure those who would abuse the country and its people can't or are held accountable.


Tell me anything that the govt does beyond helping the poor that doesn't help provide what is needed for business to operate! What is done just for the purpose of helping a citizen that doesn't end up providing help for the business community or has been created to oversee what business does because they can't be trusted?

We've gone way beyond helping, we are now enabling and encouraging bad behavior. Abuse drugs to the point you can't work, We pay you. Have a dozen kids and no father to support them, We pay you. Now these poor abused people need cell phones and I-pads to get by, We supply they. Well not yet but they are working on it. In this country the weak not only survive they thrive and multiply a lot faster than the responsible people that support them. Watch the movie Idioracy some time. It's a silly movie but a lot of truth there.

 

[mnbasketball]

well foxfrye it's like this, everything is about two things, providing a work force and paying for things that a workforce needs to survive. The only thing the govt does for the citizen is make sure those who would abuse the country and its people can't or are held accountable.


Tell me anything that the govt does beyond helping the poor that doesn't help provide what is needed for business to operate! What is done just for the purpose of helping a citizen that doesn't end up providing help for the business community or has been created to oversee what business does because they can't be trusted?

How does it help business to send millions of taxpayer dollars to Venezuela or many dozens of other countries that intend us no good now. We started sending foreign aid to Venezuela decades ago and nobody seems to remember why but we've never stopped. Do you think American business might be able to do more for Americans if they didn't have that money taxed away from them but had it to save, invest, grow their businesses, and hire people?

How does it help business to refuse to seal the border but require Americans to take care of, feed, clothe, provide medical care for, and educate everybody who sneaks into this country? Would Americans benefit more if that money wasn't taxed away from them so that they it to buy cars and appliances and houses and other products?
( I have never been one for sending our money to other countries in an attempt to help them, that anything we do should be supplied by our manufacturing, not just cash if it is needed).

How does it help business to make people easy in poverty so that many become so dependent on government that they become hardcore unemployable generation after generation? Wouldn't we all benefit with a more thriving economy if those people were instead led or driven out of poverty and were persuaded to earn their living and prosper so that they would contribute to the economy instead of sucking a whole lot out of it?

(yes it would, but making people go without without any hope of improvement do to the fact that there isn't a job around that could make it better. Jobs aren't created because people want jobs, they are created because of a need for the product that would be produce, and if you think that business just hires people because they have more money your nuts).

How does it benefit business to so tax it, regulate it, restrict it, force it, require it in this country that the only way to show a decent profit is to set up shop overseas? ( I believe that it's got something to do with two things, one is if it is left to businesses they will/haven't done the right thing for the safety of our country, workers and people. #2 everything that a business uses is provided by having a workforce to draw on and way to deliver its product, and that includes providing people to use and sell to)

And again I ask you:

What makes you think that Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do to prosper should be responsible in any way to support Citizen B who chose not to do that?

(Because they use everything that America has in order to run a business. The cost to provide a trained worker should be born by the owners of business, not the workers. What workers need to survive is mainly a byproduct of being an asset of business. You use everything or cause everything to be, why wouldn't what ends up benefiting business cost them more than just an ordinary worker who raises a family to be a workforce to be trained for you)

I've neve been able to get a liberal to honestly answer that question. Maybe you'll be the first.

this is honest as it gets, but it won't be what you want to hear.

 

[Foxfyre]

well foxfrye it's like this, everything is about two things, providing a work force and paying for things that a workforce needs to survive. The only thing the govt does for the citizen is make sure those who would abuse the country and its people can't or are held accountable.


Tell me anything that the govt does beyond helping the poor that doesn't help provide what is needed for business to operate! What is done just for the purpose of helping a citizen that doesn't end up providing help for the business community or has been created to oversee what business does because they can't be trusted?

How does it help business to send millions of taxpayer dollars to Venezuela or many dozens of other countries that intend us no good now. We started sending foreign aid to Venezuela decades ago and nobody seems to remember why but we've never stopped. Do you think American business might be able to do more for Americans if they didn't have that money taxed away from them but had it to save, invest, grow their businesses, and hire people?

How does it help business to refuse to seal the border but require Americans to take care of, feed, clothe, provide medical care for, and educate everybody who sneaks into this country? Would Americans benefit more if that money wasn't taxed away from them so that they it to buy cars and appliances and houses and other products?
( I have never been one for sending our money to other countries in an attempt to help them, that anything we do should be supplied by our manufacturing, not just cash if it is needed).

How does it help business to make people easy in poverty so that many become so dependent on government that they become hardcore unemployable generation after generation? Wouldn't we all benefit with a more thriving economy if those people were instead led or driven out of poverty and were persuaded to earn their living and prosper so that they would contribute to the economy instead of sucking a whole lot out of it?

(yes it would, but making people go without without any hope of improvement do to the fact that there isn't a job around that could make it better. Jobs aren't created because people want jobs, they are created because of a need for the product that would be produce, and if you think that business just hires people because they have more money your nuts).

How does it benefit business to so tax it, regulate it, restrict it, force it, require it in this country that the only way to show a decent profit is to set up shop overseas? ( I believe that it's got something to do with two things, one is if it is left to businesses they will/haven't done the right thing for the safety of our country, workers and people. #2 everything that a business uses is provided by having a workforce to draw on and way to deliver its product, and that includes providing people to use and sell to)

And again I ask you:

What makes you think that Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do to prosper should be responsible in any way to support Citizen B who chose not to do that?

(Because they use everything that America has in order to run a business. The cost to provide a trained worker should be born by the owners of business, not the workers. What workers need to survive is mainly a byproduct of being an asset of business. You use everything or cause everything to be, why wouldn't what ends up benefiting business cost them more than just an ordinary worker who raises a family to be a workforce to be trained for you)

I've neve been able to get a liberal to honestly answer that question. Maybe you'll be the first.

this is honest as it gets, but it won't be what you want to hear.

Bypassing everything but the final question for now, your answer was non responsive. I said nothing about training anybody or even whether Citizen A WAS in business. The question is straightforward and needs nothing added to it.

On the face of the question as written, what makes Citizen A responsible to support Citizen B in any way?

 

[ClosedCaption]

2% raise in taxes for the upper 1%...how bout it conservatives? Who's with me?

 

[mnbasketball]

The only thing that will make poverty go away is for everyone to have access to a job that would pay them an above poverty living. That doesn't mean that there still wouldn't be people who are unable to compete and survive without ******* up, we know that would happen even with rich kids who go bad.

But there is no jobs and saying that these people should not be helped even tho there is no hope is a hard thing to do. the only way would be to build a lot more jails and hire a lot more cops or we just kill them. The truth is most Americans don't want people like those who are pathetic as you suggest around them, they just want them to dissappear.

Give me an Idea of what would you do with those who have nothing, aren't educated, most likely one parent families, drug users and gang members?
Do you think turning your back on the problem will correct it?

 

[mnbasketball]

It's got nothing to do with taking from one to give to another. It's got to do with what does the country need to provide what it deems necessary to run the county.

the truth is, the country is more important than any one person or group and without what you are referring to "income redistribution" we would have a long time ago ended up with one winner or a KING.

Govt does what is necessary to make sure that the country continues. Over the last 40 years they have done a poor job of it as wealth has moved more towards a small group of people while the other much larger group has lost out.

Now your telling me that it should get worse.

 

[mnbasketball]

because we are a country and the govt we have has made that choice that it doesn't tax a person, it taxes an event because without the govt we have, you have no money.

If you don't like the system then all you need to do is not be a part of the country.
Take your ball and go somewhere that you think is better.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's got nothing to do with taking from one to give to another. It's got to do with what does the country need to provide what it deems necessary to run the county.

the truth is, the country is more important than any one person or group and without what you are referring to "income redistribution" we would have a long time ago ended up with one winner or a KING.

Govt does what is necessary to make sure that the country continues. Over the last 40 years they have done a poor job of it as wealth has moved more towards a small group of people while the other much larger group has lost out.

Now your telling me that it should get worse.

But the government has no money that it doesn't take from somebody. It either prints more money which erodes the value of everybody's money--if they do that enough, money becomes worthless--or they take it from somebody.

So we're not talking about the country continuing. We're not talking about what is or is not good for the country.

We are asking one simple question. Please don't rewrite it. Please don't add to it. Please don't make any supposition other than what is clearly stated.

What makes Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who didn't choose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous.

It's really a simple question that any conservative can answer without even thinking about it.

I want to see if it is possible for a liberal to do so. As I said, so far not one has been willing to do so.

 

[mnbasketball]

in order to have a business you need things to run it. It all starts with a workforce and a delivery system to and from your business.

Why shouldn't A pay a service fee for what he takes out of the system. Now what govt deems to spend in an effort to keep B available and a worthwhile asset for A to use is something else.

If B isn't there then A don't have a business to run.

Now if you think that you should have a country that A can do as well as they can and whatever the rest of the people end up with which will be nothing after some time is what will happen, why would the rest of us put up with that. Why wouldn't we just say the hell with you and take it away by force, it has happened in other countriesd, and start a differnt government that doesn't include you.

But the truth of the stroy is your not the ones getting hosed in this agreement of govt, The rich are getting richer, owning more and yearn for nothing. So if you think that 90% of the population should have no say on what happens, YOUR GOING TO BE WRONG.

 

[mnbasketball]

good night, if what your got isn't enough just go make more, no one is stopping you.

It is what it is and if you don't like it, so be it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is no citizen a being responsible for citizen b. That's not how taxes work.

 

[georgephillip]

It's got nothing to do with taking from one to give to another. It's got to do with what does the country need to provide what it deems necessary to run the county.

the truth is, the country is more important than any one person or group and without what you are referring to "income redistribution" we would have a long time ago ended up with one winner or a KING.

Govt does what is necessary to make sure that the country continues. Over the last 40 years they have done a poor job of it as wealth has moved more towards a small group of people while the other much larger group has lost out.

Now your telling me that it should get worse.

But the government has no money that it doesn't take from somebody. It either prints more money which erodes the value of everybody's money--if they do that enough, money becomes worthless--or they take it from somebody.

So we're not talking about the country continuing. We're not talking about what is or is not good for the country.

We are asking one simple question. Please don't rewrite it. Please don't add to it. Please don't make any supposition other than what is clearly stated.

What makes Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who didn't choose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous.

It's really a simple question that any conservative can answer without even thinking about it.

I want to see if it is possible for a liberal to do so. As I said, so far not one has been willing to do so.

If Citizen A became prosperous from bribing government for tax favors that denied Citizen B his opportunity for prosperity, Citizen A has the same moral legitimacy as a mugger whose prosperity came from stealing your car.

Force or Fraud.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's got nothing to do with taking from one to give to another. It's got to do with what does the country need to provide what it deems necessary to run the county.

the truth is, the country is more important than any one person or group and without what you are referring to "income redistribution" we would have a long time ago ended up with one winner or a KING.

Govt does what is necessary to make sure that the country continues. Over the last 40 years they have done a poor job of it as wealth has moved more towards a small group of people while the other much larger group has lost out.

Now your telling me that it should get worse.

But the government has no money that it doesn't take from somebody. It either prints more money which erodes the value of everybody's money--if they do that enough, money becomes worthless--or they take it from somebody.

So we're not talking about the country continuing. We're not talking about what is or is not good for the country.

We are asking one simple question. Please don't rewrite it. Please don't add to it. Please don't make any supposition other than what is clearly stated.

What makes Citizen A who chose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who didn't choose to do what he needed to do in order to become prosperous.

It's really a simple question that any conservative can answer without even thinking about it.

I want to see if it is possible for a liberal to do so. As I said, so far not one has been willing to do so.

If Citizen A became prosperous from bribing government for tax favors that denied Citizen B his opportunity for prosperity, Citizen A has the same moral legitimacy as a mugger whose prosperity came from stealing your car.

Force or Fraud.

You don't know how Citizen A became prosperous, but if it helps, lets say he did so honorably.

So, What makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who did not choose to do that?

So far you're behaving like every other liberal I've ever asked this question. You simply will not answer the question but continue to attempt to rewrite it.

Can you answer it? Will you? Will you be the first ever liberal to do so?

 

[georgephillip]

How prosperous is Citizen A?
Richest 1%
Richest 10,000 Americans?
Richest 400 Americans?

Can you be more specific about how you see Citizen A supporting Citizen B?

 

[Foxfyre]

How prosperous is Citizen A?
Richest 1%
Richest 10,000 Americans?
Richest 400 Americans?

Can you be more specific about how you see Citizen A supporting Citizen B?

Doesn't matter.

What makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible in any way to support Citizen B who did not choose to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous?

As I said, I have never found a liberal willing or able to answer this question while ALL conservatives can do so easily.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe you haven't found a liberal who understands how A is allegedly supporting B?

Are you claiming that making A pay taxes supports B?

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe you haven't found a liberal who understands how A is allegedly supporting B?

Are you claiming that making A pay taxes supports B?

I haven't found a liberal capable enough or honest enough I guess to simply answer the question as written.

It honestly goes to the very core of the principle behind all of liberalism and all of conservatism.

Let's try wording it a tad differently:

All things being equal, what makes Citizen A who made choices to do what was necessary to become honorably prosperous responsible to support Citizen B who did not make choices necessary to become honorably prosperous?

 

[JBeukema]

Fox, do you think we should be sending aid to Japan?