War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Boss]

Well, we can't do anything about it until we get rid of stupid people like you who are pushing the War on The Rich agenda. If we don't get some pro-capitalist smart people elected soon, who understand that free market capitalism is the key to prosperity, there is little hope for our future.[/b]

[...]

Free market capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism, which is unregulated capitalism, which ultimately operates to benefit only a small group of insiders, who in the current example are commonly known as the "One Percent."

Free market capitalism is the system imposed (with Milton Friedman's direct guidance) on the Chilean economy by Augusto Pinochet after murdering Salvador Allende during the 1973 coup. What has happened and continues to happen here in the U.S., i.e. the gradual concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of insiders, is essentially the same thing that happened in Chile. The main difference is the method of transition is peaceful rather than violent and has taken much longer.

The free market system initiated by Ronald Reagan was introduced as "trickle down" economics (a more accurately descriptive name for it would be "siphon up" economics). This transition was implemented by the incremental removal of regulations which had prevented the maneuvers and manipulations which brought about the near-collapse of the U.S. Economy in 2008 and promoted the growth of the One Percent (Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine).

The main point of the above being the basic system operating in both supply side and demand side economics is capitalism. Even the strongest opponents of your ideology (including me) are pro-capitalist. What we oppose is not capitalism but the absence of certain socialist controls (regulations). Without those controls laissez-faire capitalism will eventually begin feeding on itself, as it is doing now with such concepts as privatized prisons.

Shut the **** up, Marxist. Go make your FAILED ideology work somewhere without killing millions of innocent people and then we can talk.

 

[Boss]

Besides that, my proposal had everyone paying more.
No it didn't... It had you increasing the percentages. Every time we've increased the percentage of taxation on top marginal rates of income, the resulting revenue has declined when adjusted to GDP. So it's a plan that we know produces less revenue. Wealthy people don't have to do whatever it is you are taxing too high. It's stupid to assume they will.

Eliminate deductions, eliminate the EIC and raise the rate on capital gains for the ultra wealthy will increase federal tax receipts. To say otherwise is ******* stupid.

Are we bankrupt or not? Is there a problem of paying off debt or not.

You want to do anything about those issues. Apparently not, you can't come up with any ideas beyond getting rid of the EIC.

No, if we actually dealt with the problems and issues we have, you wouldn't have any reason to make shit up like the War on the Rich.

But it is funny to see you at odds with some of your right wing brethren. Particularly on taxes. You must have seen some of the posts of skull or androw and their desire to see taxes administered fairly. As in why should a home buyer be treated differently than a non home buyer. Those two are into the fairness part. And the home interest deduction isn't fair according to them.

And you ever heard of the OPM theory. Real rich people don't buy their houses outright. Why would they do that when they can borrow other peoples money dirt cheap and get a nice big ole tax deduction for that 5 million dollar mortgage.

Studies have been done, numbers have been crunched. Raising taxes on the top marginal income rates produces less revenue. Getting rid of deductions dramatically increases taxes on the middle, getting rid of EIC dramatically affects the poor. None of it bothers the wealthy. Taxing cap gains at the same rates as income produces virtually no capital gains investment. The more you tax anything, the less of it you get.

Real rich people don't buy their houses outright.
I know numerous wealthy people and not a single one pays a mortgage. They don't need to borrow other people's money dirt cheap, they have wealth and don't need to borrow. You're not even making any rational sense anymore.

Are we bankrupt or not? Is there a problem of paying off debt or not.
Well, we're not "bankrupt" but we are in deep debt. The solution is not to shoot holes in our boat some more by killing investment capital or punishing the middle class and poor. We need to cut spending, and by "cut" I mean real cuts, not reductions in rate of built-in increase. We need to completely eliminate entire departments and agencies. End obsolete programs and programs that have proven unsuccessful. Reduce the budget for every single federal government agency or program by 10%. Eliminate redundancy and waste.

While we are taking these cost-cutting measures, we encourage free market capitalism and investment. Reduce corporate tax rates, reduce or even eliminate cap gains taxation, declare a tax moratorium on any foreign capital returned to the US in order to create US jobs. Yep... the rich are going to get richer, and so is everyone else.

 

[MikeK]

Shut the **** up, Marxist.

I plainly told you I am pro-capitalism yet you call me a Marxist. That suggests you are in need of some basic education.

Go make your FAILED ideology work somewhere without killing millions of innocent people and then we can talk.

The ideology you refer to is not mine but is the ideology that worked quite nicely from the 1940s until the 1980s when Ronald Reagan commenced the decline of the middle class by initiating "trickle down" (supply side) economics.

And here we are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shut the **** up, Marxist.

I plainly told you I am pro-capitalism yet you call me a Marxist. That suggests you are in need of some basic education.

Go make your FAILED ideology work somewhere without killing millions of innocent people and then we can talk.

The ideology you refer to is not mine but is the ideology that worked quite nicely from the 1940s until the 1980s when Ronald Reagan commenced the decline of the middle class by initiating "trickle down" (supply side) economics.

And here we are.

Yes, the 1970's were a real joy.

Gas lines, wage and price freezes, stagflation. 25% interest rates.

I can see why you yearn for them......

 

[Boss]

I plainly told you I am pro-capitalism

.....And I am the Dalai Lama!

 

[MikeK]

I plainly told you I am pro-capitalism

.....And I am the Dalai Lama!

Capitalism prevailed during the most productive and prosperous decades in our history -- the 40s to the 80s. The main advantage existed in the form federal regulations which supervised the activities of the banking and financial industries, assuring the equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth, promoting the union movement, and rigidly enforcing labor laws.

But those regulations, virtually all of which have been repealed or modified beyond being useful, did in no way interfere with the mechanics of capitalistic expansion and growth. Individual growth flourished and new millionaires emerged every day. One significant difference was there were few if any billionaires. Overall economic growth was horizontal rather than the constrictive vertical example we're seeing today.

So why would I not favor the capitalist system? It's the free market (laissez-faire) version of capitalism I oppose -- for very obvious reasons. Simply stated, enabling "free market" capitalism is analogous to eliminating all the rules and regulations governing the use of motor vehicles. A few drivers would make it from Maine to California at 100mph with no problems. But the majority of less proficient, less fortunate drivers would not get very far and the highway system would soon be clogged and barely usable.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I plainly told you I am pro-capitalism

.....And I am the Dalai Lama!

Capitalism prevailed during the most productive and prosperous decades in our history -- the 40s to the 80s. The main advantage existed in the form federal regulations which supervised the activities of the banking and financial industries, assuring the equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth, promoting the union movement, and rigidly enforcing labor laws.

But those regulations, virtually all of which have been repealed or modified beyond being useful, did in no way interfere with the mechanics of capitalistic expansion and growth. Individual growth flourished and new millionaires emerged every day. One significant difference was there were few if any billionaires. Overall economic growth was horizontal rather than the constrictive vertical example we're seeing today.

So why would I not favor the capitalist system? It's the free market (laissez-faire) version of capitalism I oppose -- for very obvious reasons. Simply stated, enabling "free market" capitalism is analogous to eliminating all the rules and regulations governing the use of motor vehicles. A few drivers would make it from Maine to California at 100mph with no problems. But the majority of less proficient, less fortunate drivers would not get very far and the highway system would soon be clogged and barely usable.

The greatest growth in GDP in history was the period between 1986 and 2006; 20 years of growth.

It's isn't just that you have no idea what you're talking about, it's that what you claim simply isn't so.

 

[Boss]

I plainly told you I am pro-capitalism

.....And I am the Dalai Lama!

Capitalism prevailed during the most productive and prosperous decades in our history -- the 40s to the 80s. The main advantage existed in the form federal regulations which supervised the activities of the banking and financial industries, assuring the equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth, promoting the union movement, and rigidly enforcing labor laws.

But those regulations, virtually all of which have been repealed or modified beyond being useful, did in no way interfere with the mechanics of capitalistic expansion and growth. Individual growth flourished and new millionaires emerged every day. One significant difference was there were few if any billionaires. Overall economic growth was horizontal rather than the constrictive vertical example we're seeing today.

So why would I not favor the capitalist system? It's the free market (laissez-faire) version of capitalism I oppose -- for very obvious reasons. Simply stated, enabling "free market" capitalism is analogous to eliminating all the rules and regulations governing the use of motor vehicles. A few drivers would make it from Maine to California at 100mph with no problems. But the majority of less proficient, less fortunate drivers would not get very far and the highway system would soon be clogged and barely usable.

As I said, you are a Marxist. It's important to note, a Marxist is not "anti-capitalist" they just want to control the capitalism from a central government.

I'm more in favor of the "no speed limit" version of capitalism... let it ride, baby! I have no problem whatsoever with creating more millionaires, and billionaires are even better. More people becoming wealthy is better than more people becoming poor, in my opinion.

 

[Andylusion]

Besides that, my proposal had everyone paying more.
No it didn't... It had you increasing the percentages. Every time we've increased the percentage of taxation on top marginal rates of income, the resulting revenue has declined when adjusted to GDP. So it's a plan that we know produces less revenue. Wealthy people don't have to do whatever it is you are taxing too high. It's stupid to assume they will.

Eliminate deductions, eliminate the EIC and raise the rate on capital gains for the ultra wealthy will increase federal tax receipts. To say otherwise is ******* stupid.

Are we bankrupt or not? Is there a problem of paying off debt or not.

You want to do anything about those issues. Apparently not, you can't come up with any ideas beyond getting rid of the EIC.

No, if we actually dealt with the problems and issues we have, you wouldn't have any reason to make shit up like the War on the Rich.

Ugh!....

Yes, in the short term it will increase tax revenue.

The problem is, you missed that changes in incentives, results in changes in actions in the long run.

People move assets, move investments, towards more safe, more profitable things. As they do that, the revenue from your drastically higher taxes, will dwindle down.

It's not like we haven't tried your plan before. In the 70s and before, we had tax rates in the 90% range. Did we have money back then to fund health care, and social security, and welfare, and all the other government programs, without a deficit or national debt?

The answer is most obviously, no.

So that idea that jacking up taxes 'on the rich' today is going bring in trillions on trillions of dollars, and balance the budget, and pay off the deficit, is just ridiculous at face value.

But it get's worse.

You have to remember that every dollar you suck out of the pocket of the people who produce jobs, means inherently, that less jobs are produced. That is a logically undeniable statement.

No matter what a rich person does with money, it's going to have a positive economic benefit. If they instead have their money confiscated by government, and given to political supporters as a kick back, or as some screw ball government waste project, jobs are destroyed, or never existed. That would be a net negative.

 

[Dad2three]

See page 40 ratio of benefits to taxes:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf

If your income is less than 50 percent of the poverty line you receive 89.64 times more in SS benefits than you put in.

If your income is between 50 to 100 percent of the poverty line you receive 7.49 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line you receive 2.28 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 200 to 300 percent of the poverty line you receive 0.82% percent of what you put in.

If your income is greater than three times the poverty line you receive 26% of what you put in.

So, NO you didn't read the link I provided


Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."


In The Progressivity of Social Security (NBER Working Paper No. 7520), the authors concentrate on redistribution within, rather than across, generations. The Social Security benefit formula explicitly transfers money from people who earned more during their working years to those who earned less. This is why it is commonly seen as a progressive program. And, most economic studies have confirmed that Social Security is redistributive.

But the common perception and these previous studies fail to include a range of relevant individual characteristics that determine whether people really are lifetime rich or lifetime poor, the authors argue. When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

You're a ******* retarded dumb ass marxist POS.

Got it, you don't like links from right wing groups that show you are a moron

When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

 

[RKMBrown]

See page 40 ratio of benefits to taxes:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf

If your income is less than 50 percent of the poverty line you receive 89.64 times more in SS benefits than you put in.

If your income is between 50 to 100 percent of the poverty line you receive 7.49 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line you receive 2.28 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 200 to 300 percent of the poverty line you receive 0.82% percent of what you put in.

If your income is greater than three times the poverty line you receive 26% of what you put in.

So, NO you didn't read the link I provided


Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."


In The Progressivity of Social Security (NBER Working Paper No. 7520), the authors concentrate on redistribution within, rather than across, generations. The Social Security benefit formula explicitly transfers money from people who earned more during their working years to those who earned less. This is why it is commonly seen as a progressive program. And, most economic studies have confirmed that Social Security is redistributive.

But the common perception and these previous studies fail to include a range of relevant individual characteristics that determine whether people really are lifetime rich or lifetime poor, the authors argue. When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

You're a ******* retarded dumb ass marxist POS.

Got it, you don't like links from right wing groups that show you are a moron

When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

Your a ******* idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

See page 40 ratio of benefits to taxes:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/distcurrfinalv2.pdf

If your income is less than 50 percent of the poverty line you receive 89.64 times more in SS benefits than you put in.

If your income is between 50 to 100 percent of the poverty line you receive 7.49 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line you receive 2.28 times more in SS than you put in.

If your income is between 200 to 300 percent of the poverty line you receive 0.82% percent of what you put in.

If your income is greater than three times the poverty line you receive 26% of what you put in.

So, NO you didn't read the link I provided


Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."


In The Progressivity of Social Security (NBER Working Paper No. 7520), the authors concentrate on redistribution within, rather than across, generations. The Social Security benefit formula explicitly transfers money from people who earned more during their working years to those who earned less. This is why it is commonly seen as a progressive program. And, most economic studies have confirmed that Social Security is redistributive.

But the common perception and these previous studies fail to include a range of relevant individual characteristics that determine whether people really are lifetime rich or lifetime poor, the authors argue. When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

You're a ******* retarded dumb ass marxist POS.

Got it, you don't like links from right wing groups that show you are a moron

When people are properly classified, no redistribution is found.

R/W NBER

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

Your a ******* idiot.

Stop projecting Bubba, it makes you look even worse then Rushblow

 

[Andylusion]

Well, we can't do anything about it until we get rid of stupid people like you who are pushing the War on The Rich agenda. If we don't get some pro-capitalist smart people elected soon, who understand that free market capitalism is the key to prosperity, there is little hope for our future.[/b]

[...]

Free market capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism, which is unregulated capitalism, which ultimately operates to benefit only a small group of insiders, who in the current example are commonly known as the "One Percent."

Free market capitalism is the system imposed (with Milton Friedman's direct guidance) on the Chilean economy by Augusto Pinochet after murdering Salvador Allende during the 1973 coup. What has happened and continues to happen here in the U.S., i.e. the gradual concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of insiders, is essentially the same thing that happened in Chile. The main difference is the method of transition is peaceful rather than violent and has taken much longer.

The free market system initiated by Ronald Reagan was introduced as "trickle down" economics (a more accurately descriptive name for it would be "siphon up" economics). This transition was implemented by the incremental removal of regulations which had prevented the maneuvers and manipulations which brought about the near-collapse of the U.S. Economy in 2008 and promoted the growth of the One Percent (Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine).

The main point of the above being the basic system operating in both supply side and demand side economics is capitalism. Even the strongest opponents of your ideology (including me) are pro-capitalist. What we oppose is not capitalism but the absence of certain socialist controls (regulations). Without those controls laissez-faire capitalism will eventually begin feeding on itself, as it is doing now with such concepts as privatized prisons.

But that simply has not borne out.

The number of people who are wealthy in America, has drastically increased, and many of the formerly wealthy have all but disappeared.

If you go through some of the oldest institutions of learning in America, they are littered with the names of previously wealthy, whose decadence are live more are less as average citizens.

The idea of the limitations of a privileged class of people, came from a thousand years where the wealthy and the political were the same. You were in politics and in business, because of the privilege of politics. This system could be seen in Tunisia, where the president, had members of his family, and extended family, and friends of the family, in control of every major business in the entire country.

But in America, where we have a more Capitalists Free-Market system, your claims are old and false. There is no such system in America.

The CEO of Walmart, started working as a truck unloader, working as a summer job while going to college.

The CEO of Walmart was not given to privilege, or by having connections in the government. He worked a low-wage part time job, while going to school, and worked his way up the corporate ladder through hard work, education, and effort.

I could list the names of people in government, who worked their way up from completely unknown families, in unknown towns, to the highest offices in our country. Even Obama himself, even if I disagree with his policies, is proof that there is no "class-system" at work. There is not aristocracy.

And 80% of all Millionaires in our country are self made. They were not born into billions. Warren Buffet wasn't born into billions. Warren Buffet, made his way by working to where he is.

And Reagan I don't even think coined the term trickle down. Nevertheless, trickle down is in fact how the world works. That's undeniable fact of reality. You show me the poor impoverished beggar that supplies jobs or wealth for the country? Where's the Beggar Auto Factory pumping out automobiles? Or LCD TVs? Or computers? Or Smart Phones? Of course there is no such wealth created by impoverished beggars, or jobs by the same.

Trickle down is how everything works. The internet I have, is a trickle down from wealthy people who provide that service. The computers I'm using, is trickle down from wealthy people. My home, A/C and heat, electricity, food, stereo, the chair I'm sitting on, the car I drive, and the job I'm currently working, have all trickled down to me from the wealthy. If they didn't exist to make all such things, I would have none of them. No beggar is going to make so much as the cup I'm drinking from.

And what you oppose, is the cause of all the things you claim to hate. Your regulations are what rich people use, to hold other people poor. You controls, are what the wealthy use to prevent anyone else from getting wealthy.

This is what you people on the left, refuse to admit, even though it's overwhelmingly obvious.

Look at the people who surrounded Obama, when he signed into law the new CAFE regulations on cars.

GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford... all the big executives. Did it look like your regulations were holding them back? Were you 'sticking it to the man' with them smiling all around Obama signing what you claim was us reining them in? Did they have the looks of men who were having their fun ended?

Ford CEO Alan Mulally, “We are pleased President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will benefit the environment and the economy. Today’s announcement signals the achievement of a crucial milestone – an agreement in principle on a national program for increased fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gases.”

The agony of the super wealthy at Ford is bleeding through no doubt.

Friedrich Eichiner, Member of the Board of Management of BMW AG, said, “The announcement today by President Obama is a major step in the right direction for automotive manufacturers in the United States such as the BMW Group.”

Poor Fiedrich saying that it's a this is a good thing for his BMW Group. He's obviously lost in the pain of denial no doubt.

All those terribly worried miserable people standing proudly by Obama as he signs in the regulations that doom them.

These people don't look like their beaten. They look like their dominating. Why? Because they are.

Think about it this way.... let's say that you and me, try to start a car company. The Federal Regulators show up, and demand our car must pass all these millions of regulations.

Do we have the money to fund the R&D to meet those regulations? No. Who does? GM... Ford... BMW... Toyota.... the rich wealthy corporations do.

These regulations do more to protect the wealthy, and hinder the poor, than any overt rule ever could. Our tiny car company can't possible pay the money needed to meet those regulations, while the rich and wealthy can easily afford it.

You on the left, are the people who are being played like a fiddle. You are the pawns of the rich, that hinder yourselves, for their benefit.

 

[Boss]

Well, we can't do anything about it until we get rid of stupid people like you who are pushing the War on The Rich agenda. If we don't get some pro-capitalist smart people elected soon, who understand that free market capitalism is the key to prosperity, there is little hope for our future.[/b]

[...]

Free market capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism, which is unregulated capitalism, which ultimately operates to benefit only a small group of insiders, who in the current example are commonly known as the "One Percent."

Free market capitalism is the system imposed (with Milton Friedman's direct guidance) on the Chilean economy by Augusto Pinochet after murdering Salvador Allende during the 1973 coup. What has happened and continues to happen here in the U.S., i.e. the gradual concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of insiders, is essentially the same thing that happened in Chile. The main difference is the method of transition is peaceful rather than violent and has taken much longer.

The free market system initiated by Ronald Reagan was introduced as "trickle down" economics (a more accurately descriptive name for it would be "siphon up" economics). This transition was implemented by the incremental removal of regulations which had prevented the maneuvers and manipulations which brought about the near-collapse of the U.S. Economy in 2008 and promoted the growth of the One Percent (Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine).

The main point of the above being the basic system operating in both supply side and demand side economics is capitalism. Even the strongest opponents of your ideology (including me) are pro-capitalist. What we oppose is not capitalism but the absence of certain socialist controls (regulations). Without those controls laissez-faire capitalism will eventually begin feeding on itself, as it is doing now with such concepts as privatized prisons.

But that simply has not borne out.

The number of people who are wealthy in America, has drastically increased, and many of the formerly wealthy have all but disappeared.

If you go through some of the oldest institutions of learning in America, they are littered with the names of previously wealthy, whose decadence are live more are less as average citizens.

The idea of the limitations of a privileged class of people, came from a thousand years where the wealthy and the political were the same. You were in politics and in business, because of the privilege of politics. This system could be seen in Tunisia, where the president, had members of his family, and extended family, and friends of the family, in control of every major business in the entire country.

But in America, where we have a more Capitalists Free-Market system, your claims are old and false. There is no such system in America.

The CEO of Walmart, started working as a truck unloader, working as a summer job while going to college.

The CEO of Walmart was not given to privilege, or by having connections in the government. He worked a low-wage part time job, while going to school, and worked his way up the corporate ladder through hard work, education, and effort.

I could list the names of people in government, who worked their way up from completely unknown families, in unknown towns, to the highest offices in our country. Even Obama himself, even if I disagree with his policies, is proof that there is no "class-system" at work. There is not aristocracy.

And 80% of all Millionaires in our country are self made. They were not born into billions. Warren Buffet wasn't born into billions. Warren Buffet, made his way by working to where he is.

And Reagan I don't even think coined the term trickle down. Nevertheless, trickle down is in fact how the world works. That's undeniable fact of reality. You show me the poor impoverished beggar that supplies jobs or wealth for the country? Where's the Beggar Auto Factory pumping out automobiles? Or LCD TVs? Or computers? Or Smart Phones? Of course there is no such wealth created by impoverished beggars, or jobs by the same.

Trickle down is how everything works. The internet I have, is a trickle down from wealthy people who provide that service. The computers I'm using, is trickle down from wealthy people. My home, A/C and heat, electricity, food, stereo, the chair I'm sitting on, the car I drive, and the job I'm currently working, have all trickled down to me from the wealthy. If they didn't exist to make all such things, I would have none of them. No beggar is going to make so much as the cup I'm drinking from.

And what you oppose, is the cause of all the things you claim to hate. Your regulations are what rich people use, to hold other people poor. You controls, are what the wealthy use to prevent anyone else from getting wealthy.

This is what you people on the left, refuse to admit, even though it's overwhelmingly obvious.

Look at the people who surrounded Obama, when he signed into law the new CAFE regulations on cars.

GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford... all the big executives. Did it look like your regulations were holding them back? Were you 'sticking it to the man' with them smiling all around Obama signing what you claim was us reining them in? Did they have the looks of men who were having their fun ended?

Ford CEO Alan Mulally, “We are pleased President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will benefit the environment and the economy. Today’s announcement signals the achievement of a crucial milestone – an agreement in principle on a national program for increased fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gases.”

The agony of the super wealthy at Ford is bleeding through no doubt.

Friedrich Eichiner, Member of the Board of Management of BMW AG, said, “The announcement today by President Obama is a major step in the right direction for automotive manufacturers in the United States such as the BMW Group.”

Poor Fiedrich saying that it's a this is a good thing for his BMW Group. He's obviously lost in the pain of denial no doubt.

All those terribly worried miserable people standing proudly by Obama as he signs in the regulations that doom them.

These people don't look like their beaten. They look like their dominating. Why? Because they are.

Think about it this way.... let's say that you and me, try to start a car company. The Federal Regulators show up, and demand our car must pass all these millions of regulations.

Do we have the money to fund the R&D to meet those regulations? No. Who does? GM... Ford... BMW... Toyota.... the rich wealthy corporations do.

These regulations do more to protect the wealthy, and hinder the poor, than any overt rule ever could. Our tiny car company can't possible pay the money needed to meet those regulations, while the rich and wealthy can easily afford it.

You on the left, are the people who are being played like a fiddle. You are the pawns of the rich, that hinder yourselves, for their benefit.

WELL SAID! I wish I could THANK this more! Bravo, sir!

 

[MikeK]

WELL SAID! I wish I could THANK this more! Bravo, sir!

Composed while staring a broken economy in the face, an economy in which working class incomes have been stagnant for decades while one percent of the population is hoarding over fifty percent of the Nation's wealth, and while a $17.5 trillion debt continues to grow, we read this litany of gratitude for the the rise of an emerging plutocracy, put forth by an admirer of the cult of mindless greed.

Rush Limbaugh couldn't have said it better.

 

[Dad2three]

Well, we can't do anything about it until we get rid of stupid people like you who are pushing the War on The Rich agenda. If we don't get some pro-capitalist smart people elected soon, who understand that free market capitalism is the key to prosperity, there is little hope for our future.[/b]

[...]

Free market capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism, which is unregulated capitalism, which ultimately operates to benefit only a small group of insiders, who in the current example are commonly known as the "One Percent."

Free market capitalism is the system imposed (with Milton Friedman's direct guidance) on the Chilean economy by Augusto Pinochet after murdering Salvador Allende during the 1973 coup. What has happened and continues to happen here in the U.S., i.e. the gradual concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of insiders, is essentially the same thing that happened in Chile. The main difference is the method of transition is peaceful rather than violent and has taken much longer.

The free market system initiated by Ronald Reagan was introduced as "trickle down" economics (a more accurately descriptive name for it would be "siphon up" economics). This transition was implemented by the incremental removal of regulations which had prevented the maneuvers and manipulations which brought about the near-collapse of the U.S. Economy in 2008 and promoted the growth of the One Percent (Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine).

The main point of the above being the basic system operating in both supply side and demand side economics is capitalism. Even the strongest opponents of your ideology (including me) are pro-capitalist. What we oppose is not capitalism but the absence of certain socialist controls (regulations). Without those controls laissez-faire capitalism will eventually begin feeding on itself, as it is doing now with such concepts as privatized prisons.

But that simply has not borne out.

The number of people who are wealthy in America, has drastically increased, and many of the formerly wealthy have all but disappeared.

If you go through some of the oldest institutions of learning in America, they are littered with the names of previously wealthy, whose decadence are live more are less as average citizens.

The idea of the limitations of a privileged class of people, came from a thousand years where the wealthy and the political were the same. You were in politics and in business, because of the privilege of politics. This system could be seen in Tunisia, where the president, had members of his family, and extended family, and friends of the family, in control of every major business in the entire country.

But in America, where we have a more Capitalists Free-Market system, your claims are old and false. There is no such system in America.

The CEO of Walmart, started working as a truck unloader, working as a summer job while going to college.

The CEO of Walmart was not given to privilege, or by having connections in the government. He worked a low-wage part time job, while going to school, and worked his way up the corporate ladder through hard work, education, and effort.

I could list the names of people in government, who worked their way up from completely unknown families, in unknown towns, to the highest offices in our country. Even Obama himself, even if I disagree with his policies, is proof that there is no "class-system" at work. There is not aristocracy.

And 80% of all Millionaires in our country are self made. They were not born into billions. Warren Buffet wasn't born into billions. Warren Buffet, made his way by working to where he is.

And Reagan I don't even think coined the term trickle down. Nevertheless, trickle down is in fact how the world works. That's undeniable fact of reality. You show me the poor impoverished beggar that supplies jobs or wealth for the country? Where's the Beggar Auto Factory pumping out automobiles? Or LCD TVs? Or computers? Or Smart Phones? Of course there is no such wealth created by impoverished beggars, or jobs by the same.

Trickle down is how everything works. The internet I have, is a trickle down from wealthy people who provide that service. The computers I'm using, is trickle down from wealthy people. My home, A/C and heat, electricity, food, stereo, the chair I'm sitting on, the car I drive, and the job I'm currently working, have all trickled down to me from the wealthy. If they didn't exist to make all such things, I would have none of them. No beggar is going to make so much as the cup I'm drinking from.

And what you oppose, is the cause of all the things you claim to hate. Your regulations are what rich people use, to hold other people poor. You controls, are what the wealthy use to prevent anyone else from getting wealthy.

This is what you people on the left, refuse to admit, even though it's overwhelmingly obvious.

Look at the people who surrounded Obama, when he signed into law the new CAFE regulations on cars.

GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford... all the big executives. Did it look like your regulations were holding them back? Were you 'sticking it to the man' with them smiling all around Obama signing what you claim was us reining them in? Did they have the looks of men who were having their fun ended?

Ford CEO Alan Mulally, “We are pleased President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will benefit the environment and the economy. Today’s announcement signals the achievement of a crucial milestone – an agreement in principle on a national program for increased fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gases.”

The agony of the super wealthy at Ford is bleeding through no doubt.

Friedrich Eichiner, Member of the Board of Management of BMW AG, said, “The announcement today by President Obama is a major step in the right direction for automotive manufacturers in the United States such as the BMW Group.”

Poor Fiedrich saying that it's a this is a good thing for his BMW Group. He's obviously lost in the pain of denial no doubt.

All those terribly worried miserable people standing proudly by Obama as he signs in the regulations that doom them.

These people don't look like their beaten. They look like their dominating. Why? Because they are.

Think about it this way.... let's say that you and me, try to start a car company. The Federal Regulators show up, and demand our car must pass all these millions of regulations.

Do we have the money to fund the R&D to meet those regulations? No. Who does? GM... Ford... BMW... Toyota.... the rich wealthy corporations do.

These regulations do more to protect the wealthy, and hinder the poor, than any overt rule ever could. Our tiny car company can't possible pay the money needed to meet those regulations, while the rich and wealthy can easily afford it.

You on the left, are the people who are being played like a fiddle. You are the pawns of the rich, that hinder yourselves, for their benefit.

In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400. -

Just over 3 percent of the Forbes 400, the United for a Fair Economy researchers found, have left no good paper trail on their actual economic backgrounds. Of the over 60 percent remaining, all grew up in substantial privilege.


The Self-Made Myth Our Hallucinating Rich

 

[Boss]

And the cut and paste propaganda continues in the war you cannot win against the enemy you'll never defeat. Democrats, able to get the most unqualified man in the history of the presidency elected and re-elected, able to secure majorities and supermajorities in both houses of congress, can ram through massive tax increases without any republican votes... but you can't win the war on the rich. In spite of all your efforts, in spite of having all the good little socialist warriors out there posting propaganda and lamenting the virtues of Marxism, the war is as dismal as it has ever been. The rich just keep on getting richer.

Oh the humanity... Occupiers in every major city, sit ins and protests galore, news media in your back pocket cheering you on, activist courts packed with your minions, powerful labor unions backing your play, 47% of the dependent class in your corner... and yet... the rich keep on getting richer, year in and year out, as your war efforts FAIL miserably. ...Poor shmucks!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is it that the whiners here refuse to see any but the most extreme examples of success?

There are many many people who start with little who rise substantially above their circumstances.

Certainly rising from the bottom 20% to the top 20% is success is it not?

Considering that to be in the top 20% of earners one only has to make about 70K a year why is it you people all seem to think that it's impossible?

 

[zeke]

40 hours a week, 51 weeks a year (ok to get a week off?) = 2040 hours worked. 70,000$ gross income divided by 2040 hours = $34.31 per hour.

And you say there are "lots" of jobs out there paying 34 bucks an hour. Where are they for the person with the high school education? I know some people that would really like to make 34 dollars an hour. Even 24 an hour.
Hell, 14 an hour for some I know would be great.

What's your company pay per hour? You hiring?

 

[zeke]

Hey Boss, how many millions are you worth? Just curious.