None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[yidnar]

If someone was stuck in the ditch and needed help I would first want to know if they were rich. If they were a billionaire, I try to push them in farther. Just my good side.

NOT ME !! I"D CHARGE THEM A MILLION DOLLARS TO PULL THEM OUT !!................DUMB ASS !!

 

[Londoner]

Part of why...

Average Americans support the Republican party is because the GOP created a very seductive populism to capture people who were disillusioned with a Democratic party that shifted from economic populism to social justice (e.g., civil rights, feminism, multiculturalism, etc). In short, the GOP offered Nixon's white Silent Majority an alternative to the bra burning, atheist, anti-war, anti-family, pot smoking hippie Left. This is why Reagan (a divorced man who rarely went to church) teamed with Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority - so he could capture the Heartland from a Democratic party that had abandoned them for the sexual revolution, Bill Ayers' SDS, and the gay agenda - support of which grew out of the Liberal intelligentsia, concentrated mainly in the urban north.

Remember: Conservatives had been in the wilderness during the Postwar years when the Democrats owned the middle class through big entitlements, generous work programs, and porky infrastructure favors (to "important" districts). The goal of the Republican party was to find a narrative which could pry average Americans off the New Deal teat. This is why they pivoted to the language of sin and salvation - to perfectly counter the new atheist left.

Which is to say:

Republican voters don't go into the voting booth to support billionaires who are seeking to crush foreign competition in the pharmaceutical market. They don't go into the voting booth in support of Reagan's neoliberalism which allowed big business to shift from expensive American labor to cheap Asian sweatshops. They don't go into the voting booth aware of Reagan's destruction of the Sherman Act, which created a generation of too-big-to-fail mega-mergers who eventually became powerful enough to buy the American Government.

They go into the voting booth to vote against evil. (against evil baby killing socialist fascist freedom hating blame America liberals)

(against teachers who are going to turn their kid gay)

This is why, in 2005, the Right worried more about a petty evil dictator than a housing bubble which destroyed the global economy.

(Turns out the real WMD was the predatory ALT-A championed by Reagan's Maestro - Alan Greenspan, the right wing oracle and Ayn Rand's chief collaborator)

How did we get here?

Reagan shifted the conversation from Teddy Roosevelt's "malefactor's of great wealth" to Janet Jackson's breast, drug dealers, and single black welfare mothers. From the poor working man championed by his former hero FDR to Hellfire Nation, Reagan moved angry populism away from his donors.

(Please recall Nancy Reagan's "you can't fly if you're high" which prefigured a shift in law enforcement from Wall Street crooks to blacks selling nickel bags to white high schoolers)

IN OTHER WORDS: The useful idiots were conditioned to worry about fake demons, while the real evil doers looted the country.

(Brilliant)

 

[yidnar]

Part of why...

Average Americans support the Republican party is because the GOP created a very seductive populism to capture people who were disillusioned with a Democratic party that shifted from economic populism to social justice (e.g., civil rights, feminism, multiculturalism, etc). In short, the GOP offered Nixon's white Silent Majority an alternative to the bra burning, atheist, anti-war, anti-family, pot smoking hippie Left. This is why Reagan (a divorced man who rarely went to church) teamed with Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority - so he could capture rural Heartland Christianity from a Democratic party that had abandoned them for the sexual revolution, black panthers, Bill Ayers' SDS, and the gay agenda.

Remember: Conservatives had been in the wilderness during the Postwar years when the Democrats owned the middle class through big entitlements, generous work programs, and porky infrastructure favors (to "important" districts). The goal of the Republican party was to find a narrative which could pry average Americans off the New Deal teat. This is why they pivoted to the language of sin and salvation - to perfectly counter the new left (i.e., the new atheist left).

They don't go into the voting booth to support billionaires who are seeking to crush foreign competition in the pharmaceutical market. They don't go into the voting booth in support of Reagan's neoliberalism which allowed big business to shift from expensive American labor to cheap Asian sweatshops. They don't go into the voting booth aware of Reagan's destruction of the Sherman Act, which created a generation of too-big-to-fail mega-mergers who eventually became powerful enough to buy the American Government.

They go into the voting booth to vote against evil. (against evil baby killing socialist fascist freedom hating liberals)

This is why, in 2005, the Right worried more about a petty evil dictator than a housing bubble which destroyed the global economy.

(Turns out the real WMD was the predatory ALT-A championed by Reagan's Maestro - Alan Greenspan, the right wing oracle and Ayn Rand's chief collaborator)

How did we get here?

Reagan shifted the conversation from Teddy Roosevelt's malefactor's of great wealth to Janet Jackson's breast, drug dealers, and single black welfare mothers.

(Please recall Nancy Reagan's "you can't fly if you're high" which prefigured a shift in law enforcement from Wall Street crooks to blacks selling nickel bags to white high schoolers)

IN OTHER WORDS: The useful idiots were conditioned to worry about fake demons, while the real evil doers looted the country.

(Brilliant)

Bush was blocked 27 times from looking into the mortgage industry ..ie..Fanny and Freddie ... by a democratic controlled congress !! he was even called a racist by the CBC when he tried to get oversight !!

 

[Londoner]

Tell us about the times any of your family got hired by poor people. We need jobs. Not their money.

Consider Henry Ford. He understood the power of the poor consumer.

This is why he paid his poor workers enough to buy the cars they made. (American capital was held captive to the American consumer before it was liberated to pursue foreign markets)

Henry's theory - which was common before the supply siders took over - was that when poor people had more money (higher wages, benefits, entitlements), their increased spending lead to job growth (because the capitalist has to innovate and add jobs to capture the excess demand). When the poor consumer doesn't have money, consumption stops and the capitalist is forced to shed jobs.

You don't provide income support to the hardworking poor because you feel sorry for them or because you want to save them. (This is a myth generated by your party)

You protect the solvency of the hardworking poor so they will maintain consumption levels.

When Reagan, acting on behalf of capital, created the conditions for cheap labor in America, he "fired" the American consumer, who was forced to increasingly rely on credit/debt to consume.

Poor people do provide jobs because without their spending (without their ability to consume), the economy dies. The problem with taking care of only the "job creators" is that you end up removing some of the supports which enable the other thing necessary for job growth: demand.

During the postwar years, economic policy shifted from taking care of suppliers to making sure the poor worker had more spending money (through entitlements, high wages, and a vast array of programs which gave them an affordable cost of living). The result was that the poor had massive amounts of money to spend. They were spending so much that the capitalist needed to keep adding more and more jobs. Study the economic growth in the 50s and 60s. Compare it to the 80s. Then research the relative economic policies of both eras.

(you've been lied to by people who are looting the country)

 

[Dr Grump]

Tell us about the times any of your family got hired by poor people. We need jobs. Not their money.

Consider Henry Ford. He understood the power of the poor consumer.

This is why he paid his poor workers enough to buy the cars they made. (American capital was held captive to the American consumer before it was liberated to pursue foreign markets)

Henry's theory - which was common before the supply siders took over - was that when poor people had more money (higher wages, benefits, entitlements), their increased spending lead to job growth (because the capitalist has to innovate and add jobs to capture the excess demand). When the poor consumer doesn't have money, consumption stops and the capitalist is forced to shed jobs.

You don't provide income support to the hardworking poor because you feel sorry for them or because you want to save them. (This is a myth generated by your party)

You protect the solvency of the hardworking poor so they will maintain consumption levels.

When Reagan, acting on behalf of capital, created the conditions for cheap labor in America, he "fired" the American consumer, who was forced to increasingly rely on credit/debt to consume.

Poor people do provide jobs because without their spending (without their ability to consume), the economy dies. The problem with taking care of only the "job creators" is that you end up removing some of the supports which enable the other thing necessary for job growth: demand.

During the postwar years, economic policy shifted from taking care of suppliers to making sure the poor worker had more spending money (through entitlements, high wages, and a vast array of programs which gave them an affordable cost of living). The result was that the poor had massive amounts of money to spend. They were spending so much that the capitalist needed to keep adding more and more jobs. Study the economic growth in the 50s and 60s. Compare it to the 80s. Then research the relative economic policies of both eras.

(you've been lied to by people who are looting the country)

Do the neocon whackjobs get it yet?

The salivate slavishly over the rich, like they're the Kings and Queens of the 21st century....

 

[MikeK]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can't get a reasoned applicative definition of that word from these neo-conservatives because their common mindset, which manifests as greed, gluttony and self-centered retentiveness, completely excludes any sense of charity. For them, the concept of hoarding excessive wealth, even if they have no wealth to hoard, is laudable -- simply because of that mindset.

For them the concept of sharing has no rational purpose. For them the idea of taking a small amount of food from someone who has more than he could ever consume and giving it to someone who is starving is robbery. In the simplest terms they are greedy hoarders -- even though many of them profess to be Christian. Underlying that orientation is a rather broad pattern of perverse psychological factors often having roots in a hatefully competitive relationship with siblings.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can't get a reasoned applicative definition of that word from these neo-conservatives because their common mindset, which manifests as greed, gluttony and self-centered retentiveness, completely excludes any sense of charity. For them, the concept of hoarding excessive wealth, even if they have no wealth to hoard, is laudable -- simply because of that mindset.

For them the concept of sharing has no rational purpose. For them the idea of taking a small amount of food from someone who has more than he could ever consume and giving it to someone who is starving is robbery. In the simplest terms they are greedy hoarders -- even though many of them profess to be Christian. Underlying that orientation is a rather broad pattern of perverse psychological factors often having roots in a hatefully competitive relationship with siblings.

Nice summary...

 

[MikeK]

This is extracted from a different thread and it should really piss off quite a few here:


In the interest of preserving the strength and social integrity of the American Nation I propose that in addition to an equitably progressive tax rate a limit of $20,000,000 (twenty-million dollars) be imposed on all personal assets and that any assets in excess of that amount be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service. This would ensure the continued ability to acquire and retain reasonable personal wealth while eliminating the harmful potential of excessive wealth and the emergence of a financial aristocracy which could operate to undermine the nature of our democratic republic.

In addition to the above, I propose that laws be enacted to finance all federal and state elections with public money and that no candidate or elected official be permitted to accept any form of contribution or gift, whether money or anything of value, from any constituent, political supporter or other person or entity. The only exception being acceptance of ordinary and unexceptional gifts from relatives or close personal friends. Any violation of this proscription shall be subject to severe criminal penalties.

You'd have to see some radical changes to the US Constitution.
Otherwise I would state categorically that you are in a parallel universe.
Confiscation?....This is precisely why the people founded this nation left England in the first place. To escape an authoritarian monarchy.
BTW without abolition of the 2nd Amendment and the confiscation ( would have to be by force) of all weapons, you're proposal goes nowhere.
Nice dream for you ,I guess.

That actually IS socialism btw and the reason why the USSR doesn't exist anymore.

The reason why the USSR doesn't exist anymore is not socialism but Stalinism, which was a totalitarian perversion of collectivism.

Also, and most importantly, Russia's effort to achieve a functional communist system failed because it had just emerged from an economically ruinous revolution and had no material with which to build. The USSR started out broke and could not sustain both a healthy social structure and a powerful military at the same time -- as could and as did the U.S. So it chose to become a military state and thus it failed as a whole and productive nation.

Last, if you believe what I've proposed is socialism the glaring flaw in that notion is the simple fact that a socialist entity would not tolerate the accumulation of appreciable wealth ($20 million) by any individual citizen. What I've proposed is essentially a capitalist system which is regulated by expedient socialist controls -- actually not very different from what we have today. The major difference would be the forcible elimination of gluttonous greed.

 

[Ropey]

> None of you are rich.

That's not so... 6% of this forum are people who are rich.

I'm in that grouping.

 

[editec]

There's a pretty good chance that Bripat is paid to play this game.

Ya think?

Hey Bripat, get me a job!

I can craft arguments that actually make sense supporting your TEA PARTY POV.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can't get a reasoned applicative definition of that word from these neo-conservatives because their common mindset, which manifests as greed, gluttony and self-centered retentiveness, completely excludes any sense of charity. For them, the concept of hoarding excessive wealth, even if they have no wealth to hoard, is laudable -- simply because of that mindset.

For them the concept of sharing has no rational purpose. For them the idea of taking a small amount of food from someone who has more than he could ever consume and giving it to someone who is starving is robbery. In the simplest terms they are greedy hoarders -- even though many of them profess to be Christian. Underlying that orientation is a rather broad pattern of perverse psychological factors often having roots in a hatefully competitive relationship with siblings.

You really don't have a clue about greed do you? Are you greedy about your time? Want to have the right to use as you please? Perhaps more time with the wife/kids or on the links?

So what's the diff? Time is money as they say.. Money is only the reward WILLINGLY given by others for your service in making their TIME on earth more productive. EVERY individual will trade time for money. Want to wash dishes by hand or buy a machine that saves you an hour a day?

TIME is more valuable than gold. And EVERYBODY hoardes it.. That's why leftists (and Marxists like yourself) who hate church people are so surprised that ANYONE would have the discipline to get up every Sunday morn and WASTE 2 hours of their week listening to motivation and learning about community problems. Yeah -- MIKEK -- tell me MORE about those greedy people of faith you tool...

 

[flacaltenn]

Londoner::

Consider Henry Ford. He understood the power of the poor consumer.

This is why he paid his poor workers enough to buy the cars they made. (American capital was held captive to the American consumer before it was liberated to pursue foreign markets)

Henry's theory - which was common before the supply siders took over - was that when poor people had more money (higher wages, benefits, entitlements), their increased spending lead to job growth (because the capitalist has to innovate and add jobs to capture the excess demand). When the poor consumer doesn't have money, consumption stops and the capitalist is forced to shed jobs.

Yeah I did once..

Peter Schiff House Hearing Sept 13 2011


Henry Ford was famous for paying his workers $5 a day. That was an ounce and a quarter of gold at the time. Which, in today's exchange rate is $2,500 a week. So Ford's workers were making the equivalent of $2,500 a week, the equivalent. They were paying no federal income taxes and no payroll taxes. There was no minimum wage and there were no unions. We paid the highest wages in the world, yet we produced the best quality and least expensive products. How was that possible? Because we had the smallest government. We had minimum regulations and low taxes. If we want to recreate American industry, we have to recreate that environment. We have to allow businesses to grow and prosper, and we have to remove all of the road blocks and impediments that Congress has placed in their path over the years.

And Londoner:::

Your previous post was just shy of Brilliant (sarcasm), but go ahead and flatter yourself about blaming Reagan for the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction.. You leftists have so few opportunities to impress yourselves.. I wouldn't think of depriving you..

 

[MiddleClass]

The Great Divergence:

Income Growth since 1980:
80% to the wealthiest 1%
20% to everyone else

Much of it in tax reductions to the wealthiest 1%

While, between 1929-1979 income was more equal for the middle class.

You do the math: Republicans + Wealthy = a Reduction in Middle Class.

If you are not fighting for the middle class, you are fighting against America.

 

[MiddleClass]

Part of why...

Average Americans support the Republican party is because the GOP created a very seductive populism to capture people who were disillusioned with a Democratic party that shifted from economic populism to social justice (e.g., civil rights, feminism, multiculturalism, etc). In short, the GOP offered Nixon's white Silent Majority an alternative to the bra burning, atheist, anti-war, anti-family, pot smoking hippie Left. This is why Reagan (a divorced man who rarely went to church) teamed with Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority - so he could capture the Heartland from a Democratic party that had abandoned them for the sexual revolution, Bill Ayers' SDS, and the gay agenda - support of which grew out of the Liberal intelligentsia, concentrated mainly in the urban north.

IN OTHER WORDS: The useful idiots were conditioned to worry about fake demons, while the real evil doers looted the country.

(Brilliant)

As America was going after those in Big Business, Wall Street, and the Banks who brought down our economy, Tea Partiers were successful in changing the direction of blame toward the government, all the while turning our attention away from where blame needed to be - at Corporate UnAmerica. That is why the 2010 vote happened, and may still effect the 2012 Elections unless Americans wake up and get back to going after those who steal wealth out of the middle class and redistribute it into the coffers of the Wealthy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Part of why...

Average Americans support the Republican party is because the GOP created a very seductive populism to capture people who were disillusioned with a Democratic party that shifted from economic populism to social justice (e.g., civil rights, feminism, multiculturalism, etc). In short, the GOP offered Nixon's white Silent Majority an alternative to the bra burning, atheist, anti-war, anti-family, pot smoking hippie Left. This is why Reagan (a divorced man who rarely went to church) teamed with Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority - so he could capture the Heartland from a Democratic party that had abandoned them for the sexual revolution, Bill Ayers' SDS, and the gay agenda - support of which grew out of the Liberal intelligentsia, concentrated mainly in the urban north.

IN OTHER WORDS: The useful idiots were conditioned to worry about fake demons, while the real evil doers looted the country.

(Brilliant)

As America was going after those in Big Business, Wall Street, and the Banks who brought down our economy, Tea Partiers were successful in changing the direction of blame toward the government, all the while turning our attention away from where blame needed to be - at Corporate UnAmerica. That is why the 2010 vote happened, and may still effect the 2012 Elections unless Americans wake up and get back to going after those who steal wealth out of the middle class and redistribute it into the coffers of the Wealthy.

So when Barney Frank chastized the regulators for picking on Fan/Freddy and sent them home claiming that "Fannie/Freddy would NEVER cost taxpayer a nickle" -- he was fighting for the Middle Class???

Doesn't help to HAVE massive regulation if the moron Clowns in Charge don't want them pestering their pet projects..

 

[taichiliberal]

God, you really must enjoy showing us all what a moron you are.

Don't worry, you're with the party of your peers.

Translation: I caught this neocon/teabagger jackasses in a lie....being that he did NOT read the information I posted, being that the "Buffet" tax increase is NOT about the 250K and above folks.

Si modo is just another neocon/teabagger flunkie long on rhetoric but short on honesty and facts, as the chronology of the posts shows.

I made my millions pimping out left wing faggots to Muslims !!

Ahhh, another member of the Tea Party's think tank gracing us all with their genius!

 

[taichiliberal]

God, you really must enjoy showing us all what a moron you are.

Don't worry, you're with the party of your peers.

Translation: I caught this neocon/teabagger jackasses in a lie....being that he did NOT read the information I posted, being that the "Buffet" tax increase is NOT about the 250K and above folks.

Si modo is just another neocon/teabagger flunkie long on rhetoric but short on honesty and facts, as the chronology of the posts shows.

Gee, thanks for letting me know how truly profound your stupidity is.

We'll just add you to the list of folks who rival TM in the smarts.







pssst: I don't listen to Limbaugh and never have.

Idiot.

Blow all the smoke you want, you simple Si Modo....the chronology of the posts shows that it was YOU who erroneously tried to put the Buffet tax increase discussion on par with the tax increase on those making MORE than $250k...and I pointed out and provided information showing that you were even wrong regarding your assertion...as NO ONE has stated that $250K is on par with a millionaire, and that the proposed tax increases for those making more than $250K would NOT bankrupt anyone (if it does, then you're not a very good businessman, bunky...if you actually did make that much, which given the stupidity of your posts gives one serious doubt).

Bottom line: selfish buffoons like SiModo don't even have the stones to admit when they're proven wrong in print. So I live this self projecting idiot to repeat his willful ignorance stubbornly to the point of insipidness.

 

[Si modo]

Translation: I caught this neocon/teabagger jackasses in a lie....being that he did NOT read the information I posted, being that the "Buffet" tax increase is NOT about the 250K and above folks.

Si modo is just another neocon/teabagger flunkie long on rhetoric but short on honesty and facts, as the chronology of the posts shows.

Gee, thanks for letting me know how truly profound your stupidity is.

We'll just add you to the list of folks who rival TM in the smarts.







pssst: I don't listen to Limbaugh and never have.

Idiot.

Blow all the smoke you want, you simple Si Modo....the chronology of the posts shows that it was YOU who erroneously tried to put the Buffet tax increase discussion on par with the tax increase on those making MORE than $250k...and I pointed out and provided information showing that you were even wrong regarding your assertion...as NO ONE has stated that $250K is on par with a millionaire, and that the proposed tax increases for those making more than $250K would NOT bankrupt anyone (if it does, then you're not a very good businessman, bunky...if you actually did make that much, which given the stupidity of your posts gives one serious doubt).

Bottom line: selfish buffoons like SiModo don't even have the stones to admit when they're proven wrong in print. So I live this self projecting idiot to repeat his willful ignorance stubbornly to the point of insipidness.

I'm not exactly sure how you proved my statement - that it bothers me that the gubmint thinks I'm rich - wrong; but if it makes you feel better to believe it, go for it.

But, you're obviously mentally challenged. There's not much I can do about that.

 

[initforme]

"NOT ME !! I"D CHARGE THEM A MILLION DOLLARS TO PULL THEM OUT !!................DUMB ASS "

You hit it right on the head. My bad. Of course they would pay it because they've never in their lives had to do any kind of physical work. What was I thinking. Heck I am going to start charging $65 per hour instead of $40 per hour for my indoor painting jobs. Its a start.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a pretty good chance that Bripat is paid to play this game.

Ya think?

Hey Bripat, get me a job!

I can craft arguments that actually make sense supporting your TEA PARTY POV.

I haven't noted any such ability.