Zone1 Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?

[Red Front]

That must be why you posted evidence to support your tax scheme, eh comrade?

I actually believe we should just get rid of taxes altogether and adopt a non-profit system of production. That would be the best option.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I actually believe we should just get rid of taxes altogether and adopt a non-profit system of production. That would be the best option.

Don't let me stop you.....produce without profit.

 

[Red Front]

Don't let me stop you.....produce without profit.

The only way to produce goods in the future will be through non-profit production, using advanced technology.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only way to produce goods in the future will be through non-profit production, using advanced technology.

Don't wait, you might as well be non-profit now.

 

[Red Front]

Don't wait, you might as well be non-profit now.

No, we can't do it now, the material conditions must be in place for advanced, high-tech production to necessitate the adoption of communism in the United States, the "world mecca" and nerve center of capitalism. Once that occurs the US won't have to deal with a capitalist power that will sanction it, or threaten it with war. Because the capitalist-run world hegemon and empire that once imposed economic embargoes and waged war against communism, will itself be communist. So it will have that advantage.

In about two or three more decades people will be faced with the choice of high-tech communism, where the public owns the means of production (all of the mines, factories, technology i.e. automated systems, autonomous machines, robots, artificial intelligence. etc), or techno-feudalism, under the heel of wealthy elites. People will become worthless recipients of a government check until the rich figure out a way to turn them all into compost. Culling the herd. It will be done through pandemics, wars, poverty, incarceration, drugs, lack of healthcare, education..etc. People will just perish, and the wealthy will ironically become the high-tech communists living in modern gated communities. It could've been everyone owning the technology together, but people like you and those who listen to you will end up worthless and dead, at the hands of the rich ruling class.

​

 

[themirrorthief]

No, we can't do it now, the material conditions must be in place for advanced, high-tech production to necessitate the adoption of communism in the United States, the "world mecca" and nerve center of capitalism. Once that occurs the US won't have to deal with a capitalist power that will sanction it, or threaten it with war. Because the capitalist-run world hegemon and empire that once imposed economic embargoes and waged war against communism, will itself be communist. So it will have that advantage.

In about two or three more decades people will be faced with the choice of high-tech communism, where the public owns the means of production (all of the mines, factories, technology i.e. automated systems, autonomous machines, robots, artificial intelligence. etc), or techno-feudalism, under the heel of wealthy elites. People will become worthless recipients of a government check until the rich figure out a way to turn them all into compost. Culling the herd. It will be done through pandemics, wars, poverty, incarceration, drugs, lack of healthcare, education..etc. People will just perish, and the wealthy will ironically become the high-tech communists living in modern gated communities. It could've been everyone owning the technology together, but people like you and those who listen to you will end up worthless and dead, at the hands of the rich ruling class.

​

only communist should have guns and money

 

[Red Front]

only communist should have guns and money

Why would you say that?

 

[Staidhup]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

You’re killing me with your ignorance and stupidity. Just one question, have you ever actually visited a communist country? Less than 5% own 95% of the wealth and power.

 

[sartre play]

NO.

 

[Toro]

Yes

 

[jc456]

NO.

why?

 

[elektra]

No, we can't do it now, the material conditions must be in place for advanced, high-tech production to necessitate the adoption of communism in the United States, the "world mecca" and nerve center of capitalism. Once that occurs the US won't have to deal with a capitalist power that will sanction it, or threaten it with war. Because the capitalist-run world hegemon and empire that once imposed economic embargoes and waged war against communism, will itself be communist. So it will have that advantage.

In about two or three more decades people will be faced with the choice of high-tech communism, where the public owns the means of production (all of the mines, factories, technology i.e. automated systems, autonomous machines, robots, artificial intelligence. etc), or techno-feudalism, under the heel of wealthy elites. People will become worthless recipients of a government check until the rich figure out a way to turn them all into compost. Culling the herd. It will be done through pandemics, wars, poverty, incarceration, drugs, lack of healthcare, education..etc. People will just perish, and the wealthy will ironically become the high-tech communists living in modern gated communities. It could've been everyone owning the technology together, but people like you and those who listen to you will end up worthless and dead, at the hands of the rich ruling class.

​

In a communist controlled economy, government, you are not allowed to speak freely. Not even what you just posted.

Under communism, "communist front" will be forced to take the job of sorting metal from household garbage.

Under capitalism you are free to pontificate about how great something is you are completely ignorant of.

 

[gipper]

You’re killing me with your ignorance and stupidity. Just one question, have you ever actually visited a communist country? Less than 5% own 95% of the wealth and power.

It doesn’t matter what political or economic system a nation uses. Once a nation allows the ultra wealthy and elite to gain control of the political system, as has happened in the US, the wealthy/elite will proceed to confiscate as much of the nation’s wealth as it can.

 

[2aguy]

It doesn’t matter what political or economic system a nation uses. Once a nation allows the ultra wealthy and elite to gain control of the political system, as has happened in the US, the wealthy/elite will proceed to confiscate as much of the nation’s wealth as it can.

The elitw in communist countries do the exact same thing. The difference? The communist countries have less to confiscate because communism makes everone poor.......the elite just get rhe best of what is left

 

[jc456]

It doesn’t matter what political or economic system a nation uses. Once a nation allows the ultra wealthy and elite to gain control of the political system, as has happened in the US, the wealthy/elite will proceed to confiscate as much of the nation’s wealth as it can.

And middle class demofks help them unaware

 

[Redfish]

It doesn’t matter what political or economic system a nation uses. Once a nation allows the ultra wealthy and elite to gain control of the political system, as has happened in the US, the wealthy/elite will proceed to confiscate as much of the nation’s wealth as it can.

and so it has been since the dawn of time. its human nature and we are idiots if we think any system of government can change that.

 

[2aguy]

and so it has been since the dawn of time. its human nature and we are idiots if we think any system of government can change that.

The difference is this....

Under a free, capitialist society, with religious values.....everyone prospers......even the poor.

In socialist controlled societies, everyone is poor......the elite simply have more of less.........and then you have the mass graves and murder of anyone who opposes the socialists...

 

[the other mike]

It doesn’t matter what political or economic system a nation uses. Once a nation allows the ultra wealthy and elite to gain control of the political system, as has happened in the US, the wealthy/elite will proceed to confiscate as much of the nation’s wealth as it can.

In a nutshell we became McDonald's.

We built a company with full ownership and allowed it to be pulled out from under us.

 

[Redfish]

The difference is this....

Under a free, capitialist society, with religious values.....everyone prospers......even the poor.

In socialist controlled societies, everyone is poor......the elite simply have more of less.........and then you have the mass graves and murder of anyone who opposes the socialists...

different topic, but we agree

 

[Mac-7]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

America has always featured the super rich who acquired their wealth due to superior talent

And the common people have always been the better for it