Plutonomics

[bigrebnc1775]

Why ANYONE who knows about the increasing purchase of this countries government would EVER defend the republican line and vote for them is beyond belief.

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken
PolitiFact | Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken

I suggest that you walk away.

 

[gnurat]

Someone stated that we had ten years of reduced taxes that produced nothing. I agree.

The tiny amount that Taxes were reduced was not enough. Taxes must be reduced across the board, from local governments, to county governments, to the state governments.

Reducing the burden of government a tiny amount in one area is insignificant.

How are tax cuts for the wealthy going to make it harder for them to purchase our government from out underneath us?

Class warfare, your telling me I must accept your premise and answer questions based on a false premise. your question is irrelevant.

Demonstrate how an increase in tax to the rich is going to turn back all the progressive policies that have resulted in the burden of government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Someone stated that we had ten years of reduced taxes that produced nothing. I agree.

The tiny amount that Taxes were reduced was not enough. Taxes must be reduced across the board, from local governments, to county governments, to the state governments.

Reducing the burden of government a tiny amount in one area is insignificant.

How are tax cuts for the wealthy going to make it harder for them to purchase our government from out underneath us?

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken
PolitiFact | Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken

I suggest that you walk away.

 

[Truthmatters]

What do you call the wealthy buying out our democracy?

That is the real class warfare fool

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and they all run and hide when common sense mets their incompatable ideas.

You people are really mind fucked.


run away , run away

No ones running away, not even you. What you do is ignore those truths that you do not want to accept.
like:

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken
PolitiFact | Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken

I suggest that you walk away.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What do you call the wealthy buying out our democracy?

That is the real class warfare fool

A president.

 

[gnurat]

What do you call the wealthy buying out our democracy?

That is the real class warfare fool

I would call that a statement by someone who does not has the education to know we are a Republic.

 

[Truthmatters]

Someone stated that we had ten years of reduced taxes that produced nothing. I agree.

The tiny amount that Taxes were reduced was not enough. Taxes must be reduced across the board, from local governments, to county governments, to the state governments.

Reducing the burden of government a tiny amount in one area is insignificant.

How are tax cuts for the wealthy going to make it harder for them to purchase our government from out underneath us?

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken
PolitiFact | Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken

I suggest that you walk away.

Obama very well may be bought.

republicans are presold before they gain enough power to even be elected.


I have already gotten better results from a bought Obama than I got from any R.


They may both be bought parties.

I will still choose the lesser evil.

Your party platform IS the wealthys platform.

At least the Dems have to throw tid bits.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How are tax cuts for the wealthy going to make it harder for them to purchase our government from out underneath us?

Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken
PolitiFact | Obama's lobbyist rule: Promise Broken

I suggest that you walk away.

Obama very well may be bought.

republicans are presold before they gain enough power to even be elected.


I have already gotten better results from a bought Obama than I got from any R.


They may both be bought parties.

I will still choose the lesser evil.

Your party platform IS the wealthys platform.

At least the Dems have to throw tid bits.

obama and any other political figure that has any pull has been bought and paid for by big money. Democrats and republicans are all the same. They do not give a shit about you or me.

 

[Truthmatters]

Hey fuckwit then WHY do you defend the rs all day long?

 

[loosecannon]

To pretend that both parties are equally bought is just not true.

If all the fools here who vote right wing every election quit voting republican and voted democratic we could STOP thiss purchase.

Not all dems are unpurchased but ALL Rs are.

You probably really believe that which is why we are all fucked.

You been brainwashed by pros.

OK LC lets assume that the dems are just as bad for us as the Rs are.

What is your solution?

A third party which they can buy out in a matter of minutes?

Heres the deal, The R partys platform IS the wealthys agenda outright.

The dem party platform is often what the unber wealthy are fighting.

They perfer Rs but will buy dems when they gain more power.

When a dem is bought they are easier to spot then a bought R.

There is a reason that republicans have presided over greater wealth concentrations and huge downturns.

They are the outright enemy of the people.

Dems do more for the people than the Rs ever do, even if its only to get reelected.

The end result still is the dems are better than the Rs and better than NOTHING

The dems also preside(d) over the same wealth gap.


To answer your question, throw them ALL out and demand that their replacements do the bidding of the people, or throw them out just as quickly. Demand accountability.

As long as you keep defending the status quo our elected officials will all keep delivering increasingly sorry service to their electorate.

 

[loosecannon]

This debate is being framed as the Rich against the Poor.

I see this thread not even as a debate.

I see this thread as class warfare. I see this as one side demanding the other defend the rich. I see one side taking the side of the poor not based on facts or reality but as a political tactic.

This is a great example how progressives will always use the poor. Can I say progressives. I am not sure if that is even correct.

This is not the rich against the poor. As long as people believe that, all people will be slaves to the government, that includes the rich.

YES! The CITIBANK and WSJ folks definitely pitched an argument that something like class warfare is on the rise, and that the wealthy are not just winning but running away with the game.

So why do you suppose that CITIBANK and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are advising their readers to view the world thru that prism?

 

[California Girl]

Why ANYONE who knows about the increasing purchase of this countries government would EVER defend the republican line and vote for them is beyond belief.

If you weren't such a mindless, partisan hack you would understand that the same is true of the democrats. Of course, you can't because that would destroy your illusion. The truth is scary.

OK Cali lets assume they are both equally evil.

What is your solution to the buyout?

More tax cuts for the wealthy??

No, actually that's not my answer. That's you assuming you know what I think. You do not. What I can tell you is this..... your question 'What is your solution to the buyout' is ridiculously simplistic. Which is why I never bother 'debating' with you. You are stuck on stupid and I don't do stupid. I tried once.... I failed.... because I'm too smart to play with stupid.

 

[loosecannon]

Actually how much wealth the rich have has nothing to do with the value of my Labor.

every competent economist on earth would laugh at that statement.

My labor's wealth is artificially controlled by rules, regulations, laws, mandates, and taxes.

Can you translate that into real world examples?

Not all Labor is equal. You seem to be stating that the only solution to our problem is more of what caused the problem to begin with, progressive policies of the government.

you seem to be hallucinating. I said nothing of the kind, at all.

And the purpose of globalization is to make all labor equal. That's what the term "commodification" and esp "fungible" commodities mean.

commodify

com·mod·i·fy
verb \kə-ˈmä-də-ˌfī\
com·mod·i·fiedcom·mod·i·fy·ing
Definition of COMMODIFY
transitive verb
: to turn (as an intrinsic value or a work of art) into a commodity
— com·mod·i·fi·ca·tion \-ˌmä-də-fə-ˈkā-shən\ noun
See commodify defined for English-language learners »

Commodification - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

commodity

com·mod·i·ty
noun \kə-ˈmä-də-tē\
plural com·mod·i·ties
Definition of COMMODITY
1
: an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities futures> c : a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity chemicals> <commodity memory chips>

Commodity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

fungible
- 5 dictionary results
Practice Commodity Trades
Forget The Old Boys Club! Get The Tools To Make The Right Trade
optionsXpress.com/Futures
Fungible Definition
Find Definitions For Any Word.Get Your Free Dictionary.com Toolbar.
Dictionary.com
fun·gi·ble
&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;f&#652;nd&#658;&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled[fuhn-juh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective Law .
(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.

Fungible | Define Fungible at Dictionary.com

"Labor as a commodity", 206,000 hits

Google

First one opens with this quote: "President WILSON joins those who contend that labor is not a commodity, and that there is some malicious influence seeking to make it so. ..."

 

[California Girl]

This debate is being framed as the Rich against the Poor.

I see this thread not even as a debate.

I see this thread as class warfare. I see this as one side demanding the other defend the rich. I see one side taking the side of the poor not based on facts or reality but as a political tactic.

This is a great example how progressives will always use the poor. Can I say progressives. I am not sure if that is even correct.

This is not the rich against the poor. As long as people believe that, all people will be slaves to the government, that includes the rich.

YES! The CITIBANK and WSJ folks definitely pitched an argument that something like class warfare is on the rise, and that the wealthy are not just winning but running away with the game.

So why do you suppose that CITIBANK and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are advising their readers to view the world thru that prism?

There is a growing 'class war' in the US... driven by politicians (on both sides) and encouraged by the media. Why? Because while we are fighting between ourselves, it is easier for our politicians to grab power, and our media do it for ratings. Because ratings equals money, equals profit. It's all about money, and power. And anyone - left or right - who doesn't see that is a fool.

 

[gnurat]

This debate is being framed as the Rich against the Poor.

I see this thread not even as a debate.

I see this thread as class warfare. I see this as one side demanding the other defend the rich. I see one side taking the side of the poor not based on facts or reality but as a political tactic.

This is a great example how progressives will always use the poor. Can I say progressives. I am not sure if that is even correct.

This is not the rich against the poor. As long as people believe that, all people will be slaves to the government, that includes the rich.

YES! The CITIBANK and WSJ folks definitely pitched an argument that something like class warfare is on the rise, and that the wealthy are not just winning but running away with the game.

So why do you suppose that CITIBANK and the WALL STREET JOURNAL are advising their readers to view the world thru that prism?

I do not suppose Citi bank and WSJ are doing anything other than protecting their interests.

I do know the rich is not the problem, its the government. When you have a government that has grown as large as ours many problems occur.

Why are you not fixated on our energy policy, why is what the rich pay your most pressing concern. The cost of Energy effects your life directly. What the rich pay in tax will not do a thing to better your life.

Explain how taxing the rich more will effect your life personally. That is the part of the argument I have not seen.

 

[loosecannon]

I do not suppose Citi bank and WSJ are doing anything other than protecting their interests.

Then you should go back to page one of the thread and read the first few links posted because NO, CITI and the WSJ were NOT protecting their interests.

They were actively encouraging their readers to view the economy and the world thru a prism of "an uber elite" and "everybody else".

I double dog dare you to read what CITI and the WSJ had to say.

 

[loosecannon]

I do know the rich is not the problem, its the government. When you have a government that has grown as large as ours many problems occur.

Why are you not fixated on our energy policy, why is what the rich pay your most pressing concern. The cost of Energy effects your life directly. What the rich pay in tax will not do a thing to better your life.

Explain how taxing the rich more will effect your life personally. That is the part of the argument I have not seen.

all of that commentary illustrates that you don't have a clue what the thread is about.

Until you know what the thread is about you might as well save us from your babbling.

 

[loosecannon]

There is a growing 'class war' in the US... driven by politicians (on both sides) and encouraged by the media. Why? Because while we are fighting between ourselves, it is easier for our politicians to grab power, and our media do it for ratings. Because ratings equals money, equals profit. It's all about money, and power. And anyone - left or right - who doesn't see that is a fool.

all of that is true, but there is more to it than that.

Americans like the money too. They don't mind being lied to, as long as they get paid the bribes.

They don't mind the national debt, or the deficits, they don't want austerity, keep your gubmint hands off their SS!

Americans want a free lunch today paid for by taxing their kids tomorrow.

If we weren't so short sighted, shallow and corrupt, there is no way in hell we would tolerate as much from our reps.

But hey, we are the fast food nation!

 

[gnurat]

Actually how much wealth the rich have has nothing to do with the value of my Labor.

every competent economist on earth would laugh at that statement.

My labor's wealth is artificially controlled by rules, regulations, laws, mandates, and taxes.

Can you translate that into real world examples?




you seem to be hallucinating. I said nothing of the kind, at all.

And the purpose of globalization is to make all labor equal. That's what the term "commodification" and esp "fungible" commodities mean.



Commodification - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

commodity

com·mod·i·ty
noun \k&#601;-&#712;mä-d&#601;-t&#275;\
plural com·mod·i·ties
Definition of COMMODITY
1
: an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities futures> c : a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity chemicals> <commodity memory chips>

Commodity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

fungible
- 5 dictionary results
Practice Commodity Trades
Forget The Old Boys Club! Get The Tools To Make The Right Trade
optionsXpress.com/Futures
Fungible Definition
Find Definitions For Any Word.Get Your Free Dictionary.com Toolbar.
Dictionary.com
fun·gi·ble
&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;f&#652;nd&#658;&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled[fuhn-juh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective Law .
(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.

Fungible | Define Fungible at Dictionary.com

"Labor as a commodity", 206,000 hits

Google

First one opens with this quote: "President WILSON joins those who contend that labor is not a commodity, and that there is some malicious influence seeking to make it so. ..."

You know how every "competent" would laugh at my statement. How do you know what every "competent" economist thinks. I would challenge you to prove your statement and back it up.

My labor, you need real world examples, the implication being I do not live in the real world. Two quotes, people would laugh at me and I do not live in the real world. So I am hallucinating.

I think we should carry this to the "Flame Zone".

I am more than happy to see that people cannot dispute what I state. When you start telling me what I must do to make my point you have lost the debate and you have no basis for your position.