Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[Rshermr]

Poor amazon. Outed as a tool with no game. Now trying another stupid statement.

Only stupid to those who have never learned accounting terms and passing off Google as an economic text book.

Funny she never has a link, eh.

Now all of a sudden you have standards, although you don't follow these standards yourself. If you've ever been correct any anything (which you haven't) you don't need to links. Everything I say is easily verifiable using Google. You're suppose to be good at using that, correct? Only need sources if I really need to put up some sort of effort in refuting claims.

right, you would say that. But you are a con tool. And an idiot.
But I am still laughing at your description of what a ceo does. Comic relief may be your thing.

 

[Rshermr]

Once again...you are a fool...a useful idiot to the corporatists. Funny how we were doing great with higher wages, higher taxes and lower profits in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Up until the OPEC oil embargo that we were woefully unprepared for. Of course, Carter got the blame for the resulting inflation and that ushered in Reaganomics. After 30+ years fictional trickle down you see the results.

You do realise that all the prosperity that you believe was so great in that time period came off the backs off of the rich and poor, correct? Taxes were high, and no one paid them but a small few. And profits were anything but low, but I guess that is your idea of a boom economy. When businesses aren't making any money.

Amazon, as an economic expert, in your own mind, did you know that after reagan's tax increase the ue rate went from 7.4% in feb of 81 to 10.8% in nov of 82. That big tax increase in Feb of 81 really did the trick, eh. Yeay, I know, it just does not fit with your con education. But then, Reagan increased taxes 11 times after the ue rate skyrocketed and BORROWED more money than all the previous presidents combined. Spent stimulatively. And the ue rate went down and the economy did great.

Kind of like when clinton increased taxes to pay for stimulus spending, and we had an even better economy.

So, any idea of when decreasing taxes in high ue times has helped the economy??? Never, me poor con tool. I am sure you would know, eh, being an economic expert.

 

[AmazonTania]

right, you would say that. But you are a con tool. And an idiot.

I'm an idiot, but you can't refute anything I say and your only retorts are the use of ad hominems. Right, I can't argue with that logic. Mainly due to the fact that it makes zero sense, but whatever.

But I am still laughing at your description of what a ceo does. Comic relief may be your thing.

I'm not interested in your opinions on what a CEO does. I did was present facts and all you can do is nothing, but laugh. At least you take being refuted well. Kudos.

 

[Rshermr]

You presume too much.

I frankly don't care how much an individual, CEO, rock star, baseball player, pimp, or otherwise, makes -- provided any personal assets in excess of $20 million (after taxes) are subject to confiscation by IRS. I don't "loathe" CEOs. What I loathe is greed. And by simply lowering the bar the impetus that fosters and nourishes the destructive pathology of financial gluttony is eliminated.

As I've suggested in an earlier message, if the Framers of our Constitution were able to foresee the kind of wealth the industrialized nation of America would be capable of generating, and the kind of political and social damage excessive accumulations of that wealth would be capable of, there is no doubt they would have included limitations to such accumulation in the Document.

You know, I think that based on the drivel Boss posts that he was probably a ceo at the same time I was an emperor. Funny. Any guy who calls you a marxist pretty much gives up any hope of convincing a rational person that he has a clue.
But that is the thing. A guy like Boss can pretend he was anything on a board like this. I suspect he is a very sad case, who simply wants to be thought of as someone with accomplishment.

Aww.. sounds like someone got a little butt-hurt that I showed everyone how dumb they are. I do want to clarify, Mike is not a Marxist when he starts talking about confiscating wealth, he is a Maoist, which is far worse. And if he (or you) had been around at the time of our founding, the Founding Fathers would have used you as tree decorations.

I suppose you think that was profound. Do you enjoy delusion, boss. The idea that you actually believe that there are marxists out there PROVES you are delusional. Or believing that you were a ceo. Another delusional thought.

 

[Rshermr]

right, you would say that. But you are a con tool. And an idiot.

I'm an idiot, but you can't refute anything I say and your only retorts are the use of ad hominems. Right, I can't argue with that logic. Mainly due to the fact that it makes zero sense, but whatever.

But I am still laughing at your description of what a ceo does. Comic relief may be your thing.

I'm not interested in your opinions on what a CEO does. I did was present facts and all you can do is nothing, but laugh. At least you take being refuted well. Kudos.

Facts? Your description of what a ceo does was void of fact. But it was funny. But, what is even more funny is that you believe that you were correct. Jesus, you are a con toad. Totally clueless, me dear. Totally.

 

[georgephillip]

So are we to discriminate against "people" who profit from the maiming, murder, rape and incarceration and displacement of millions of innocent Muslims?

Yes, I'm all for discriminating against the terror regime in Iran and before that the terror regime in Iraq.

How about the economic terrorists on Wall Street?

Iraq Body Count

I went to your link. I do remember Iraq well. One incident in particular made the news. A man carried a dead child around to 30 different cities in Iraq to claim his child was killed nearby by Americans. Such a person may have killed a child along with its parents, selected the child for horrific news purposes, and falsely blamed his "enemy" for the child's demise, see the bullet holes.

What do false figures so generated have to do with Wall Street that prides itself on honesty in accounting using the most discriminating Certified Public Accountants in the world for their good information? Inquiring minds want to know.

Even capitalists with inquiring Certified Public Accountants know your alleged victim times thirty would still be alive if a pair of draft dodging deciders hadn't decided to privatize profit by socializing costs that 90% of Americans will be paying for generations. See the pressure cookers?

 

[AmazonTania]

Amazon, as an economic expert, in your own mind, did you know that after reagan's tax increase the ue rate went from 7.4% in feb of 81 to 10.8% in nov of 82. That big tax increase in Feb of 81 really did the trick, eh.

I am just a Stock Broker. No I am not an economic expert, but compared to the majority of users in this forum I am.

No, the increase in the unemployment rate was not to due to any sort of tax policy. The economy was just on the mist of another recession as Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman at the time) was forced to increase the Fed Funds Rate (Interest Rates just in case I have lost you) from 10% to a record high of near 20%. As the inflation rate during the Carter years was so bad, Volcker had no choice but to tighten the monetary base. This has a grueling effect on the economy has it increases the cost of doing business, but was necessary to preserve the value of the US Dollar. Luck for you, I have pictures.

The blue line is the Fed Funds rate and the red line is the Unemployment Rate. As you can see, the Fed Funds rate increased very rapidly, was lowered a couple of percentage points and then brought back to it's peak. As a result, the unemployment rate increased from 5 -7.5% and the peaked at 10.2% as you suggested. As the monetary base decreased, so the unemployment as the recession effectively ended in 1984.

Yeay, I know, it just does not fit with your con education. But then, Reagan increased taxes 11 times after the ue rate skyrocketed and BORROWED more money than all the previous presidents combined. Spent stimulatively. And the ue rate went down and the economy did great.

For the record, I am not a Conservative. Secondly, he spent it on the military. That doesn't stimulate anything in the economy. It's bad enough you can't get your own talking points straight, but you can't even get your own left-wing talking points about Reagan straight either. I think we have sunken to a new level of inept.

The unemployment rate went down as the monetary base was loosened and the interest rates was lowered. This has nothing to do with the tax rates of the time.

Kind of like when clinton increased taxes to pay for stimulus spending, and we had an even better economy.

Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains, and presided under an asset bubble. An asset bubble is not anyone's idea of a better economy. Unless you like phony wealth.

So, any idea of when decreasing taxes in high ue times has helped the economy??? Never, me poor con tool. I am sure you would know, eh, being an economic expert.

That was never my idea. You history is faulty, as is your economic understanding. Reagan increased taxes on people in the 25% bracket by 3%, but lowered taxes everyone in the 75% bracket by 50%. Clinton increased taxes on the top income earners by 3% and lowered tax capital gains by 8%.

Tax only increased by a little bit, but taxes decrease far more than than it was increased. A simple Google search and you'll see that you've had more prosperity when taxes were lower, as oppose to when they were higher. Regardless of whether or not the prosperity was a result of an asset bubble or not.

 

[Boss]

"Rshermr" ....Now, isn't that a name that you just KNOW is a liberal retard? When you people are creating your screen names, do you just type them with your elbows or something? Why is it always a retarded liberal who has a screen name that can't even be pronounced? You never see this from conservatives or libertarians, it's always the mindless goofy liberal. Never fails!

 

[Steelplate]

Once again...you are a fool...a useful idiot to the corporatists.

dear, conservatives are anti-corporatists. Conservatives are for separation of business and government, while liberals are for combining government and business like in Obamacare.

How stupid do you feel now?? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?? Ask yourself!!

You can say that all you want...but the actions of your chosen people bely those hollow words.

 

[AmazonTania]

Facts? Your description of what a ceo does was void of fact.

And somehow, I have managed to present detailed templates of the roles and responsibility of a CEO in my rebuttal. As I have said before, I am not interested in your opinions.

But it was funny. But, what is even more funny is that you believe that you were correct. Jesus, you are a con toad. Totally clueless, me dear. Totally.

It's funny how you cannot point out where I am wrong, with evidence. But I digress. Feel free to present more than your mere say-so.

 

[Rshermr]

Amazon, as an economic expert, in your own mind, did you know that after reagan's tax increase the ue rate went from 7.4% in feb of 81 to 10.8% in nov of 82. That big tax increase in Feb of 81 really did the trick, eh.

I am just a Stock Broker. No I am not an economic expert, but compared to the majority of users in this forum I am.

No, the increase in the unemployment rate was not to due to any sort of tax policy. The economy was just on the mist of another recession as Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman at the time) was forced to increase the Fed Funds Rate (Interest Rates just in case I have lost you) from 10% to a record high of near 20%. As the inflation rate during the Carter years was so bad, Volcker had no choice but to tighten the monetary base. This has a grueling effect on the economy has it increases the cost of doing business, but was necessary to preserve the value of the US Dollar. Luck for you, I have pictures.

The blue line is the Fed Funds rate and the red line is the Unemployment Rate. As you can see, the Fed Funds rate increased very rapidly, was lowered a couple of percentage points and then brought back to it's peak. As a result, the unemployment rate increased from 5 -7.5% and the peaked at 10.2% as you suggested. As the monetary base decreased, so the unemployment as the recession effectively ended in 1984.

Yeay, I know, it just does not fit with your con education. But then, Reagan increased taxes 11 times after the ue rate skyrocketed and BORROWED more money than all the previous presidents combined. Spent stimulatively. And the ue rate went down and the economy did great.

For the record, I am not a Conservative. Secondly, he spent it on the military. That doesn't stimulate anything in the economy. It's bad enough you can't get your own talking points straight, but you can't even get your own left-wing talking points about Reagan straight either. I think we have sunken to a new level of inept.

The unemployment rate went down as the monetary base was loosened and the interest rates was lowered. This has nothing to do with the tax rates of the time.

Kind of like when clinton increased taxes to pay for stimulus spending, and we had an even better economy.

Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains, and presided under an asset bubble. An asset bubble is not anyone's idea of a better economy. Unless you like phony wealth.

So, any idea of when decreasing taxes in high ue times has helped the economy??? Never, me poor con tool. I am sure you would know, eh, being an economic expert.

That was never my idea. You history is faulty, as is your economic understanding. Reagan increased taxes on people in the 25% bracket by 3%, but lowered taxes everyone in the 75% bracket by 50%. Clinton increased taxes on the top income earners by 3% and lowered tax capital gains by 8%.

Tax only increased by a little bit, but taxes decrease far more than than it was increased. A simple Google search and you'll see that you've had more prosperity when taxes were lower, as oppose to when they were higher. Regardless of whether or not the prosperity was a result of an asset bubble or not.

So, you must be able to show that the economy was better when taxes were lower. By the way, should you care to actually read what I said, I said when did we ever see a tax decrease make the economy better during times of high unemployment??? Want to try again??
Then, you blame the economy being bad during the reagan years on stagflation. Fair enough. But, me poor money changer, what you ignored was that the volker interest rates were not higher during the reagan years than they had been during the years just prior. AND, the ue rate had been decreasing. So, your statement that it was volkers fault does not pass the giggle test. Then, since the ue rate went to the second worst EVER, at 10.8%, the reaganites were in a real tizzy. Maybe you can not remember. You know, deficit going through the roof, all that sort of thing. And, since reagan was a supply side guy, then he must have lowered taxes again, right???? Sorry. You loose. You can squirm all you want, but tax rates were raised 11 times to INCREASE RECEIPTS. And, of course, there was that whole thing about raising all sorts of money by borrowing like crazy. Tripled the national debt. Made the gov much larger than when he came in. BUT, the economy got better. Much better.
And yeay, I know you can not stand that whole tax increase on the wealthy thing from Clinton. But, if you check, me poor ignorant money changer, the ue rate went down. Way down. AND, there was that whole deficit thing. You know. The thing that has not happened in about what, a billion years, under a republican pres. And, as a con tool, you make all sorts of excuses. Like the whole capital gains excuse. Which has been used by every bat shit crazy con tool site in existence, but is supported no where else as a source of real improvement for the economy. Way too small, me dear.

That was never my idea. You history is faulty, as is your economic understanding. Reagan increased taxes on people in the 25% bracket by 3%, but lowered taxes everyone in the 75% bracket by 50%.

Yes me poor ignorant money changer. But, that was PRIOR to the ue rate going to 10.8%. So, that showed no improvement. What showed improvement was stimulus spending from tax increases and borrowing. And, by the way, I do not suggest that was a bad thing.

Tax only increased by a little bit, but taxes decrease far more than than it was increased. A simple Google search and you'll see that you've had more prosperity when taxes were lower, as oppose to when they were higher. Regardless of whether or not the prosperity was a result of an asset bubble or not.

Did you believe that you read me suggest that raising taxes would cause a better economy? You did not, but nice try. A lie. But a good try. And, of course, if you are capable of reading, I have never ever suggested that lowering taxes during a good economy was a bad idea. Generally it is not. But where you have failed, of course, is that you can not show where lowering taxes has ever helped during a bad ue economy. Afraid you flat failed at that one.

So, twist and holler as you want, you can not show where lowering taxes during high ue has ever helped. And I can show, quite easily, where raising taxes to increase revenue for stimulus spending has helped.
If you want to see the gov numbers, be happy to provide them. Have done so so many times, it feels like old times. But, where is that case to support saying that lowering taxes will help high ue during a bad economy???

 

[Rshermr]

"Rshermr" ....Now, isn't that a name that you just KNOW is a liberal retard? When you people are creating your screen names, do you just type them with your elbows or something? Why is it always a retarded liberal who has a screen name that can't even be pronounced? You never see this from conservatives or libertarians, it's always the mindless goofy liberal. Never fails!

Well, then, I guess I should change my name to keep you happy. Maybe I should make up a background like you, tell everyone I was a ceo, and call myself boss. Oh, I guess not. Someone has already done that.

 

[Rshermr]

Facts? Your description of what a ceo does was void of fact.

And somehow, I have managed to present detailed templates of the roles and responsibility of a CEO in my rebuttal. As I have said before, I am not interested in your opinions.

But it was funny. But, what is even more funny is that you believe that you were correct. Jesus, you are a con toad. Totally clueless, me dear. Totally.

It's funny how you cannot point out where I am wrong, with evidence. But I digress. Feel free to present more than your mere say-so.

But you lie. Again. I did point out where you were wrong. Over and over. Never did trust money changers.

 

[MikeK]

Aww.. sounds like someone got a little butt-hurt that I showed everyone how dumb they are. I do want to clarify, Mike is not a Marxist when he starts talking about confiscating wealth, he is a Maoist, which is far worse. And if he (or you) had been around at the time of our founding, the Founding Fathers would have used you as tree decorations.

How can you compare my relatively benign recommendations with the actions of Chairman Mao, who not only confiscated every penny the wealthy Chinese had, he imprisoned most of them, executed some of them, and committed many of them to re-education camps where they learned about the evil nature of greed.

My recommendation to confiscate personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars is relatively benign in comparison to what Mao did and in no way approaches the most basic principle of Marxist communism. I would think you knew that. My recommendation would not negatively affect the vast majority of Americans and those whom it would affect would be left holding a considerable fortune -- unless you happen to think some would find it hard getting along on a mere twenty million.

I am not a Maoist, nor do I espouse any element of communist ideology. I believe the best economic system is a fundamental capitalist engine which is controlled by those essential socialist regulations necessary to prevent the kind of exploitation and imposed economic hardship ordinary Americans have endured in the past and which is beginning to recur. I have no wish to eliminate the accumulation of reasonable wealth, but only those levels of accumulation which are plainly excessive.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, you must be able to show that the economy was better when taxes were lower.

Says who?

By the way, should you care to actually read what I said, I said when did we ever see a tax decrease make the economy better during times of high unemployment??? Want to try again??

No.

Then, you blame the economy being bad during the reagan years on stagflation. Fair enough. But, me poor money changer, what you ignored was that the volker interest rates were not higher during the reagan years than they had been during the years just prior. AND, the ue rate had been decreasing. So, your statement that it was volkers fault does not pass the giggle test.

By your poorly phrased sentence, I take it that you are confused. I'll try to make heads or tales out of what you are trying to say.

Volcker already started increasing interest rates during the latter part of the Carter Administration to subside the effects of inflation. Interest rate spiked the first time, but was not enough to cure inflation. As I have said before, Volcker had to increase rates to history levels to show the world the country was serious about getting inflation under control. The unemployment rate was dropping, but not due to an improving economy. Hundreds of thousands of people were just leaving the labour force, as you probably don't understand:

Unemployed / Labour Force * 100 = Unemployment Rate.

An economics lesson for you today. Free of charge.

Then, since the ue rate went to the second worst EVER, at 10.8%, the reaganites were in a real tizzy. Maybe you can not remember. You know, deficit going through the roof, all that sort of thing. And, since reagan was a supply side guy, then he must have lowered taxes again, right???? Sorry. You loose. You can squirm all you want, but tax rates were raised 11 times to INCREASE RECEIPTS.

That's nice, but taxes were only raised from 25% to 28% marginally, and decreased from 75% to 35%. The amount of times he increased taxes is irrelevant, it's still small compared to the large tax cut he has given.

And, of course, there was that whole thing about raising all sorts of money by borrowing like crazy. Tripled the national debt. Made the gov much larger than when he came in. BUT, the economy got better. Much better.

The economy was recovery due to the inflation subsiding. The economy doesn't grow because government spends money. Especially if it is going to spend money on the military to purchase tanks and bombs with no future use.

And yeay, I know you can not stand that whole tax increase on the wealthy thing from Clinton. But, if you check, me poor ignorant money changer, the ue rate went down. Way down. AND, there was that whole deficit thing. You know. The thing that has not happened in about what, a billion years, under a republican pres. And, as a con tool, you make all sorts of excuses. Like the whole capital gains excuse. Which has been used by every bat shit crazy con tool site in existence, but is supported no where else as a source of real improvement for the economy. Way too small, me dear.

More examples of your bad history. The capital gains tax cut was implemented by Clinton in 1997. Guess what also happened in 1997.

A 50% increase in the DOW in 3 years. Granted this is all phony wealth fueled by an asset bubble. But the fact remains when you lower capital gains taxes, people invest more. People invest more, the economy grows faster. The economy grows faster, more jobs are created. More jobs being created, unemployment rate goes down.

Yes me poor ignorant money changer. But, that was PRIOR to the ue rate going to 10.8%. So, that showed no improvement. What showed improvement was stimulus spending from tax increases and borrowing. And, by the way, I do not suggest that was a bad thing.

The tax reform Reagan implemented happened in 1986. The unemployment rate was already below 7% by the time this all happened. Basic history and Google fails you once again. And again, military spending is not stimulus. No matter how many times you want it to be. Spending money on tanks and bombs does not stimulate the economy.

Did you believe that you read me suggest that raising taxes would cause a better economy? You did not, but nice try. A lie.

You just said it in your last sentence, you nutter...

But a good try. And, of course, if you are capable of reading, I have never ever suggested that lowering taxes during a good economy was a bad idea. Generally it is not. But where you have failed, of course, is that you can not show where lowering taxes has ever helped during a bad ue economy. Afraid you flat failed at that one.

I already did. Unless you are going to deny the biggest surge in the Dow Jones during the 90's.

So, twist and holler as you want, you can not show where lowering taxes during high ue has ever helped. And I can show, quite easily, where raising taxes to increase revenue for stimulus spending has helped.
If you want to see the gov numbers, be happy to provide them. Have done so so many times, it feels like old times. But, where is that case to support saying that lowering taxes will help high ue during a bad economy???

Again, I don't understand your poorly phrased sentences. Just show what you are trying to present. I have other idiots on this forum to refute.

 

[AmazonTania]

But you lie. Again. I did point out where you were wrong. Over and over. Never did trust money changers.

Saying I am wrong doesn't make me so. Especially if you do a poor job of doing it. As I have said, I already presented two pieces of evidence. You have yet to do the same. Your rebuttal is inaccurate, and I have shown you why by citing two sources.

Again, offer more evidence then your mere say-so. You are just wasting my time.

 

[itfitzme]

Amazon, as an economic expert, in your own mind, did you know that after reagan's tax increase the ue rate went from 7.4% in feb of 81 to 10.8% in nov of 82. That big tax increase in Feb of 81 really did the trick, eh.

I am just a Stock Broker. No I am not an economic expert, but compared to the majority of users in this forum I am.

No, the increase in the unemployment rate was not to due to any sort of tax policy. The economy was just on the mist of another recession as Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman at the time) was forced to increase the Fed Funds Rate (Interest Rates just in case I have lost you) from 10% to a record high of near 20%. As the inflation rate during the Carter years was so bad, Volcker had no choice but to tighten the monetary base. This has a grueling effect on the economy has it increases the cost of doing business, but was necessary to preserve the value of the US Dollar. Luck for you, I have pictures.

The blue line is the Fed Funds rate and the red line is the Unemployment Rate. As you can see, the Fed Funds rate increased very rapidly, was lowered a couple of percentage points and then brought back to it's peak. As a result, the unemployment rate increased from 5 -7.5% and the peaked at 10.2% as you suggested. As the monetary base decreased, so the unemployment as the recession effectively ended in 1984.

Yeay, I know, it just does not fit with your con education. But then, Reagan increased taxes 11 times after the ue rate skyrocketed and BORROWED more money than all the previous presidents combined. Spent stimulatively. And the ue rate went down and the economy did great.

For the record, I am not a Conservative. Secondly, he spent it on the military. That doesn't stimulate anything in the economy. It's bad enough you can't get your own talking points straight, but you can't even get your own left-wing talking points about Reagan straight either. I think we have sunken to a new level of inept.

The unemployment rate went down as the monetary base was loosened and the interest rates was lowered. This has nothing to do with the tax rates of the time.

Kind of like when clinton increased taxes to pay for stimulus spending, and we had an even better economy.

Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains, and presided under an asset bubble. An asset bubble is not anyone's idea of a better economy. Unless you like phony wealth.

So, any idea of when decreasing taxes in high ue times has helped the economy??? Never, me poor con tool. I am sure you would know, eh, being an economic expert.

That was never my idea. You history is faulty, as is your economic understanding. Reagan increased taxes on people in the 25% bracket by 3%, but lowered taxes everyone in the 75% bracket by 50%. Clinton increased taxes on the top income earners by 3% and lowered tax capital gains by 8%.

Tax only increased by a little bit, but taxes decrease far more than than it was increased. A simple Google search and you'll see that you've had more prosperity when taxes were lower, as oppose to when they were higher. Regardless of whether or not the prosperity was a result of an asset bubble or not.

1. Military spending absolutely does increase economic output. It has been shown to have a multiplier of 1.5.

2. There is evidence that tax decreases have a positive multiplier, though it is far less than the spending multiplier.

3. There is no evidence that lowering taxes has had a sustained positive general economic impact, in the U.S. A big part of the problem is that discresionary spending has typically been increased immediately following the tax decreases.

 

[itfitzme]

"A 50% increase in the DOW in 3 years. Granted this is all phony wealth fueled by an asset bubble. But the fact remains when you lower capital gains taxes, people invest more. People invest more, the economy grows faster. The economy grows faster, more jobs are created. More jobs being created, unemployment rate goes down. "

A common misperseption is that the stock market represents investment in real capitol. Capital, in an economic sense, is equipment and facilities. The sale of an IPO does invest in economic capitol. The majority, and for all intents and purposes, all of the stock market is simply the tranfer of wealth and has no economic impact.

 

[Boss]

Aww.. sounds like someone got a little butt-hurt that I showed everyone how dumb they are. I do want to clarify, Mike is not a Marxist when he starts talking about confiscating wealth, he is a Maoist, which is far worse. And if he (or you) had been around at the time of our founding, the Founding Fathers would have used you as tree decorations.

How can you compare my relatively benign recommendations with the actions of Chairman Mao, who not only confiscated every penny the wealthy Chinese had, he imprisoned most of them, executed some of them, and committed many of them to re-education camps where they learned about the evil nature of greed.

My recommendation to confiscate personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars is relatively benign in comparison to what Mao did and in no way approaches the most basic principle of Marxist communism. I would think you knew that. My recommendation would not negatively affect the vast majority of Americans and those whom it would affect would be left holding a considerable fortune -- unless you happen to think some would find it hard getting along on a mere twenty million.

I am not a Maoist, nor do I espouse any element of communist ideology. I believe the best economic system is a fundamental capitalist engine which is controlled by those essential socialist regulations necessary to prevent the kind of exploitation and imposed economic hardship ordinary Americans have endured in the past and which is beginning to recur. I have no wish to eliminate the accumulation of reasonable wealth, but only those levels of accumulation which are plainly excessive.

Mike, what you are espousing is Maoist philosophy, I didn't say your suggestion would lead to the same thing as Mao, but I think Mao's suggestions were just as benign as yours in the beginning.

I don't care that it wouldn't affect most Americans, I care that it would affect ONE American! Because what you are suggesting is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Now, I don't know how else to put that, you are free to ignorantly believe otherwise, but "wealth" is owned personal property of the individual, just like their home, car, boat, or RV. The 4th Amendment PROHIBITS government from seizing your personal property. So, in order to make what you suggest happen, you need to repeal the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Founders would not have supported you on this.

But FURTHERMORE... IF... IF... you were somehow able to bypass the Constitution and implement your idea, it would still fail miserably. The relatively small number of people who's incomes would be over $20 mil, would suddenly only report $19.9 mil incomes. When incomes approached the magic number, they would be deferred. Numerous options are available for this, and you could not close all the loopholes. If you attempted to do so, you would topple world markets and create a global financial crisis.

Here's the thing you need to try and understand... You are Wyle E. Coyote, and the Capitalist Rich People, are The Roadrunner. Perhaps that's a simple enough way to explain it to you? No matter what you do, no matter what your plan is, the "Rich" are going to be one step ahead of you, that's how they got to be rich. You're not going to tax them more than they want to pay. You certainly aren't going to just confiscate their property. And all you are going to ever manage to do, is create more problems for yourself. Because, you see, the more you make it difficult for rich capitalists to engage in free market capitalist ventures, the more you stick a fork in our economic growth and prosperity. POOR fuckers don't create jobs! By setting a limit on the amount people can make, you essentially set a limit on the number of jobs created, and amount of economic prosperity that can be realized.

 

[Boss]

"Rshermr" ....Now, isn't that a name that you just KNOW is a liberal retard? When you people are creating your screen names, do you just type them with your elbows or something? Why is it always a retarded liberal who has a screen name that can't even be pronounced? You never see this from conservatives or libertarians, it's always the mindless goofy liberal. Never fails!

Well, then, I guess I should change my name to keep you happy. Maybe I should make up a background like you, tell everyone I was a ceo, and call myself boss. Oh, I guess not. Someone has already done that.

Nooo... you totally misunderstand, which I am sure is common with you. I think it's appropriate you have a retarded screen name, and wouldn't suggest you change a thing. It actually helps us conservatives distinguish between the retarded liberals and the brain damaged liberals.

I haven't "made up" a background or anything else about myself, I don't even comprehend why I would want to do that. This is an anonymous message board, you can't confirm or deny anything said here, so what difference does it make? I revealed I was once a CEO, not because I was bragging, in fact, I even said that very thing, but because you seemed to think I was asking you what a CEO did because I didn't know. I asked because I wanted to see if you knew, and you didn't, because you've still not answered the question. Of course, this made you look foolish and you didn't like that, so now you are hurling lies and insinuations at me as fast as you can, but that's not working for you either.