The ClassWar Has Officially Begun

[WillowTree]

Stopping legal voters from voting.

which policy did that?

there policy of caging voters in elections.

There policy of voter IDs.

there policy of felons lists.

and these are all legal voters how exactly?

 

[WillowTree]

If there's a "class war" going on, raw data would show that it's the top couple percent of the wealthy crippling everyone else, so if you're one of those guys, why worry? You're winning. Chillax wit a bahamma mamma and a stogey.

There are some signs that the rest of us are beginning to fight back at last. This is what conservatives mean by "class war." Strictly speaking, they're right. A massacre is not really a war. A war requires two sides.

what exactly are you fighting against? Another person's success? you are a mron then aren't you?

 

[Dragon]

what exactly are you fighting against?

Please see post no. 13 on this thread.

 

[The Infidel]

If there's a "class war" going on, raw data would show that it's the top couple percent of the wealthy crippling everyone else, so if you're one of those guys, why worry? You're winning. Chillax wit a bahamma mamma and a stogey.

The ignorance is glaring on this site !

This regime is making it so that those that have money dont want to risk it.... so they sit on it (WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT!)

I love the "rich liberals" who say they are'nt paying enough.... I dont see them filling out their IRS forms so that they pay what they feel they should be taxed. How about Warren Buffet just "paying his fair share" voluntarily?

 

[OODA_Loop]

thus encouraging the accumulation of private fortune without limit.

Yes you determine when they have made enough.

 

[G.T.]

If there's a "class war" going on, raw data would show that it's the top couple percent of the wealthy crippling everyone else, so if you're one of those guys, why worry? You're winning. Chillax wit a bahamma mamma and a stogey.

The ignorance is glaring on this site !

This regime is making it so that those that have money dont want to risk it.... so they sit on it (WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT!)

I love the "rich liberals" who say they are'nt paying enough.... I dont see them filling out their IRS forms so that they pay what they feel they should be taxed. How about Warren Buffet just "paying his fair share" voluntarily?

OhHh, you're right, the drastically increased wealth disparity in the Country is because people are sitting on their money.

 

[Nosmo King]

It began long ago when the republicans insisted on policies that started the fall in middle class incomes.

name those policies.

Supply side economics and "free" trade.

 

[Dragon]

The ignorance is glaring on this site !

This regime is making it so that those that have money dont want to risk it.... so they sit on it

Yeah, that's powerful ignorant, all right.

The reason why those who have money are sitting on it has nothing to do with "the regime," except insofar as Obama is continuing the failed Reagan policies of the past 30 years. It has to do with the fact that too many people have too little money and so can't buy anything, which means that investing their money would be a waste of time.

If you want the rich to invest their money, take some of it from them and give it to the rest of us. I'm dead serious here. If the rest of us had more money to spend, there would be a reason to invest capital in producing more for us to spend our money on. Otherwise, there is no reason and it won't be done.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If there's a "class war" going on, raw data would show that it's the top couple percent of the wealthy crippling everyone else, so if you're one of those guys, why worry? You're winning. Chillax wit a bahamma mamma and a stogey.

The ignorance is glaring on this site !

This regime is making it so that those that have money dont want to risk it.... so they sit on it (WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT!)

I love the "rich liberals" who say they are'nt paying enough.... I dont see them filling out their IRS forms so that they pay what they feel they should be taxed. How about Warren Buffet just "paying his fair share" voluntarily?

OhHh, you're right, the drastically increased wealth disparity in the Country is because people are sitting on their money.

The Fed is to blame for the rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer, and has been for awhile. That trend will continue. It's our government's fault for first putting the Fed in place, then keeping them there, and now letting the Fed do whatever it wants without even an audit to see how they're doing and what they're doing.

How the Fed made the rich richer - 1 - inflation & QE2 - MSN Money

 

[Rocko]

The shot heard round the world from the podium in DC










yay demonRats.. yay for youse

The class war is over and the rich have won!

The rich will lose too. Thats what democrat loyalists don't get. Socialist policies never bring anyone out of poverty, they just lead to the erosion of the wealthy and middle class, where the wealth is finally in the hands of aristocrats, and everyone else is poor.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If there's a "class war" going on, raw data would show that it's the top couple percent of the wealthy crippling everyone else, so if you're one of those guys, why worry? You're winning. Chillax wit a bahamma mamma and a stogey.

There are some signs that the rest of us are beginning to fight back at last. This is what conservatives mean by "class war." Strictly speaking, they're right. A massacre is not really a war. A war requires two sides.

No fight here. I show up with the right attitude and focus on being as productive an employee as I can. I come from an upbringing that instilled I can do whatever i put my mind to and i live it.

I value my salary, options and benefits.

I want the corporation to make more and more as I profit when my value adds revenue value.

 

[Ernie S.]

The class warfare has been going on for a long time, Obama is just starting another skirmish for political reasons. I noticed he provided no specifics, nothing that can be scored. It is therefore not a plan, it's just another political campaign speech.

I hear that it's going to take him a couple weeks to present a bill, but he's got to take another vacation first.

Here's the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union:"

CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?

DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...

CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?

DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.

So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.

LINK

 

[Ernie S.]

Stopping legal voters from voting.

which policy did that?

there policy of caging voters in elections.

There policy of voter IDs.

there policy of felons lists.

You mean all those policies of actually ensuring voters are legally entitled to vote?

Please learn the difference between the words their and there. Your idiocy is showing more than usual.

 

[WillowTree]

It began long ago when the republicans insisted on policies that started the fall in middle class incomes.

name those policies.

1) Compressing and simplifying the tax code, and thus encouraging the accumulation of private fortune without limit. This in turn encouraged investments in short-turnaround, high-short-term return investments such as financial instruments over the longer-turnaround investments that actually create wealth and employ people.

2) Deregulation of business, particularly the financial industry. Together with the tax changes noted above, this encouraged and allowed the kind of complicated financial shell-games that collapsed in 2008. Before that, though, it encouraged the increased share of the economy taken up by the financial sector, as opposed to the sectors such as manufacturing and services that genuinely produce wealth.

3) Anti-union policies. Together with the encouragement of outsourcing (below), this was responsible for a long-term decline in real wages.

4) Tax and trade policies that encourage outsourcing. This encouraged manufacturers to shed expensive American labor for the kind of cheap labor available in third-world countries. As the manufacturing jobs, which let many working-class people live middle-class lifestyles, were replaced by service jobs, the government's anti-union policies prevented the unionization of the service industry that might have kept wages high in spite of this change.

There are some other minor policies but those were the main ones.

Note that the Clinton administration was in some ways as culpable here as the Reagan and Bush administrations (both Bushes), and that the Obama administration has not reversed any of this to a significant degree. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, although arguably the Republicans have been worse.

what exactly are you fighting against?

Please see post no. 13 on this thread.

yes it is a D vs R issue. otherwise the D's wouldn't spend all day blaming the R's and calling them "for the evil rich only" and "racists" try again.

 

[Ernie S.]

name those policies.

1) Compressing and simplifying the tax code, and thus encouraging the accumulation of private fortune without limit. This in turn encouraged investments in short-turnaround, high-short-term return investments such as financial instruments over the longer-turnaround investments that actually create wealth and employ people.

2) Deregulation of business, particularly the financial industry. Together with the tax changes noted above, this encouraged and allowed the kind of complicated financial shell-games that collapsed in 2008. Before that, though, it encouraged the increased share of the economy taken up by the financial sector, as opposed to the sectors such as manufacturing and services that genuinely produce wealth.

3) Anti-union policies. Together with the encouragement of outsourcing (below), this was responsible for a long-term decline in real wages.

4) Tax and trade policies that encourage outsourcing. This encouraged manufacturers to shed expensive American labor for the kind of cheap labor available in third-world countries. As the manufacturing jobs, which let many working-class people live middle-class lifestyles, were replaced by service jobs, the government's anti-union policies prevented the unionization of the service industry that might have kept wages high in spite of this change.

There are some other minor policies but those were the main ones.

Note that the Clinton administration was in some ways as culpable here as the Reagan and Bush administrations (both Bushes), and that the Obama administration has not reversed any of this to a significant degree. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, although arguably the Republicans have been worse.

Read my signature.

The bill Clinton signed Gramm leach biliely act had provisions to avert the mess in it.

The Bush admin held back thosse provisions for YEARS so this could happen

Little early to be drinking, dear. you're making less sense that usual.

 

[Wiseacre]

The class warfare has been going on for a long time, Obama is just starting another skirmish for political reasons. I noticed he provided no specifics, nothing that can be scored. It is therefore not a plan, it's just another political campaign speech.

I hear that it's going to take him a couple weeks to present a bill, but he's got to take another vacation first.

Here's the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union:"

CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?

DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...

CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?

DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.

So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.

LINK

You forgot the fundraisers, gotta be 15-20 of them in the next couple of weeks.

 

[boedicca]

The class warfare has been going on for a long time, Obama is just starting another skirmish for political reasons. I noticed he provided no specifics, nothing that can be scored. It is therefore not a plan, it's just another political campaign speech.

I hear that it's going to take him a couple weeks to present a bill, but he's got to take another vacation first.

Here's the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union:"

CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?

DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...

CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?

DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.

So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.

LINK

You forgot the fundraisers, gotta be 15-20 of them in the next couple of weeks.

With the travel costs charged to taxpayers as he promotes his "Jobs Bill".

 

[Dr.Drock]

The shot heard round the world from the podium in DC










yay demonRats.. yay for youse

The class war is over and the rich have won!

The rich will lose too. Thats what democrat loyalists don't get. Socialist policies never bring anyone out of poverty, they just lead to the erosion of the wealthy and middle class, where the wealth is finally in the hands of aristocrats, and everyone else is poor.

Depends what you call rich, if you call rich making $5 million a year yes those people are losing because of our Fed/gov't policies, if you make $5 billion a year you probably stand and cheer our Fed/gov't as loud as your voice would let you.

 

[WillowTree]

The ignorance is glaring on this site !

This regime is making it so that those that have money dont want to risk it.... so they sit on it

Yeah, that's powerful ignorant, all right.

The reason why those who have money are sitting on it has nothing to do with "the regime," except insofar as Obama is continuing the failed Reagan policies of the past 30 years. It has to do with the fact that too many people have too little money and so can't buy anything, which means that investing their money would be a waste of time.

If you want the rich to invest their money, take some of it from them and give it to the rest of us. I'm dead serious here. If the rest of us had more money to spend, there would be a reason to invest capital in producing more for us to spend our money on. Otherwise, there is no reason and it won't be done.

spoken like a true communist,,,,,errrr marxist,,,errrrrr demonRat.









ya know, yo shoulddda learned it ain't nice to steal other people's property.. ya knowwhatImean?

 

[Dragon]

yes it is a D vs R issue. otherwise the D's wouldn't spend all day blaming the R's and calling them "for the evil rich only" and "racists"

Naturally politicians will try to make it a party issue; that's their job. However, in view of the actual real-world responsibility for the policies, there is blame in both parties.

Do you actually know how to answer an argument or are you just here to throw spitwads?