You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The rich are waging class warfare on the poor
- Thread starter failed_trad3r
- Start date
Quote from Betapeg:
...said the angry right winger.
Seriously, you need to chill out.
I pretty much agreed with you. That's why I suggested you support universal healthcare. You want a 1:1 payback don't you?
In a democracy, there are going to be people who disagree with you. If your response is to get angry and suggest radical ideas like secession just because you don't get your way, then that's unfortunate.
Wait, I thought one of the Left's favorite slogans is "If you're not angry, it's because you're not paying attention"? So only people on the Left are allowed to be angry? I'm not even so much angry as frustrated that idiots like you somehow exist today, when I know for a fact that you would never have been able to exist in the past, since your ideas are so nonsensical that in any society less affluent than the modern West, they'd be non-starters. You people are clearly God's little joke on me. I could have been born in any time in history, but I had to be around when libtards roam the planet.
"Universal health care" is a 1 to 1 payback? Really? In what country because it seems to me that it's actually been used for wealth redistribution (from richer to poorer and from healthy to sick) everywhere it's been put into place. Maybe in magical unicorn land it's a 1 to 1 payback, but on this planet it's part and parcel of the "social justice" movement's goals of wealth redistribution, to say nothing of the power dynamic it sets in motion between the citizen and state.
It's beyond just "disagreement" at this point. This is over fundamental differences of worldview, the role of the individual in society, the role of civil vs. political society, methods of maximizing economic wealth and a variety of other factors. At least it is for those of us who think seriously about these things. Someone once wrote (paraphrase) of the Soviet Union, "Shooting a man in the head because you disagree with his interpretation of Hegel is extreme, but it does show that one takes philosophy seriously". So it does.
Quote from Betapeg:
Not arbitrary. Pre-bush tax cut. Arbitrary would be all rich must pay 50% tax rate effective immediately. Take a nice trip to Europe, because they'd probably laugh at you Americans complaining about high taxes. Even if we returned to Clinton tax rates, we'd still have one the lowest tax rates of any of the G20 nations.
We can have an exchange of ideas or one of rhetoric like "Obamatown Kool Aid". I'm not interested in rhetoric.
1) Again, it is arbitrary. You just added more evidence. Since when does following a previous administration or another G20 nation make something optimal? I couldn't care less what Europe does. They don't exactly look like a model of fiscal responsibility right now, either. And if they didn't free ride off our military and pharma research, they'd spend more and be in worse shape.
2) We have a president who takes every opportunity to make ridiculous claims about those making $250K+. They're "jet owners" and such. Has he ever priced out a jet? His obsession with "soaking the rich" comments has obstructed the debut discussion more than anything else. There's no need to take a false high road here--I'm just calling it like it is.
Quote from MKTrader:
Your "graphs" prove nothing. Are the poor and rich both having a better standard of living? Who are the poor anyway? Are they people living below an arbitrary "poverty line"? I know people who would be classified as such who didn't take any form of gov't handouts. They lived in "poverty" fine and were able to get out on their own. How much better off are those in poverty that take multiple handouts (welfare, food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, etc.)?
And I don't even need to read the Rolling Stone article. The last political article of theirs I read was atrociously bad--pure tripe.
No wonder you failed at trading...
Though I do try, it is hard to take you seriously sometimes, especially when you interject unrelated personal remarks in your responses to opinions you don't agree with.
What those graphs do show, assuming the data is accurate, is that the household income of the bottom 80% has remained flat, in spite of inflation, while the top 21% has risen and the top 1% has risen nearly 400% over the past 25 years. But what is even more disturbing is that for all but the top 21% the share of total income has been steadily declining, which I interpret to mean that the lower 80% have not been able to even keep pace with inflation.
I am thankful to be in the top 21%, nevertheless these numbers concern me greatly, and I would think any responsible person, regardless of their political views, should be greatly concerned about the social fabric of the nation going forward. Something has gone terribly wrong.
Quote from logic_man:
Wait, I thought one of the Left's favorite slogans is "If you're not angry, it's because you're not paying attention"? So only people on the Left are allowed to be angry? I'm not even so much angry as frustrated that idiots like you somehow exist today, when I know for a fact that you would never have been able to exist in the past, since your ideas are so nonsensical that in any society less affluent than the modern West, they'd be non-starters. You people are clearly God's little joke on me. I could have been born in any time in history, but I had to be around when libtards roam the planet.
I'm talking to you like an adult. I only ask that you do the same.
"Universal health care" is a 1 to 1 payback? Really? In what country because it seems to me that it's actually been used for wealth redistribution (from richer to poorer and from healthy to sick) everywhere it's been put into place. Maybe in magical unicorn land it's a 1 to 1 payback, but on this planet it's part and parcel of the "social justice" movement's goals of wealth redistribution, to say nothing of the power dynamic it sets in motion between the citizen and state.
Yes, universal healthcare in all the highly developed industrialized societies of the world is really an evil liberal communist plot to redistribute wealth. Who knew? Especially that they have a higher life expectancy and all...
It's beyond just "disagreement" at this point. This is over fundamental differences of worldview, the role of the individual in society, the role of civil vs. political society, methods of maximizing economic wealth and a variety of other factors. At least it is for those of us who think seriously about these things. Someone once wrote (paraphrase) of the Soviet Union, "Shooting a man in the head because you disagree with his interpretation of Hegel is extreme, but it does show that one takes philosophy seriously". So it does.
I sense your hopelessness feeling too. That's why I tell my conservative friends when we agree to disagree that it's best to just worry about yourself because what can we do personally about our national problems?
Quote from MKTrader:
1) Again, it is arbitrary. You just added more evidence. Since when does following a previous administration or another G20 nation make something optimal? I couldn't care less what Europe does. They don't exactly look like a model of fiscal responsibility right now, either. And if they didn't free ride off our military and pharma research, they'd spend more and be in worse shape.
It isn't arbitrary. In the 1950's the tax rate for the highest income earners was like 90%. THAT is arbitrary.
As for healthcare, these "socialist" countries provide universal healthcare at a fraction of the cost that we pay privately for the same care.
2) We have a president who takes every opportunity to make ridiculous claims about those making $250K+. They're "jet owners" and such. Has he ever priced out a jet? His obsession with "soaking the rich" comments has obstructed the debut discussion more than anything else. There's no need to take a false high road here--I'm just calling it like it is.
We have a huge debt. It only makes sense to advocate a tax increase. Who do we increase taxes for? How about those who have been getting preferential tax treatment, as demonstrated by the fact that Warren Buffet himself says he doesn't pay enough in taxes. Raising taxes to pay off a high public debt is something normal countries do. But not here! We're not even talking about raising taxes that much. Just to pre-Bush tax cut levels. And even that gets calls from the right wing screaming "communist!". Please...
Quote from piezoe:
I am thankful to be in the top 21%, nevertheless these numbers concern me greatly, and I would think any responsible person, regardless of their political views, should be greatly concerned about the social fabric of the nation going forward.
I agree with you. That trend is a direct route to revolution. Which means either redistribution at the point of a gun, or strong repression of the bulk of the population. Both mean blood on the streets. And both are independent of "logic" - they simply "are".
I would have thought the aftermath of the Cold War taught us both those outcomes are far more expensive than having a progressive bias in taxation, but apparently not.
Quote from piezoe:
Though I do try, it is hard to take you seriously sometimes, especially when you interject unrelated personal remarks in your responses to opinions you don't agree with.
What those graphs do show, assuming the data is accurate, is that the household income of the bottom 80% has remained flat, in spite of inflation, while the top 21% has risen and the top 1% has risen nearly 400% over the past 25 years. But what is even more disturbing is that for all but the top 21% the share of total income has been steadily declining, which I interpret to mean that the lower 80% have not been able to even keep pace with inflation.
I am thankful to be in the top 21%, nevertheless these numbers concern me greatly, and I would think any responsible person, regardless of their political views, should be greatly concerned about the social fabric of the nation going forward. Something has gone terribly wrong.
If you read the posts in this thread, you'd know I'm hardly the first to "interject unrelated personal remarks." Any reason you waited for the 27th page to call someone on that? For one thing, the original poster has been somewhat tongue-and-cheek and trying to elicit such responses. He didn't say he was offended by my remark, which was also a little tongue-in-cheek. And if you're soooo worked about about ad hominem remarks, you'd be scolding people like Tre Foil. Instead, you and he seem to have suspicious monologues on here...
There's no point addressing your remarks when you jump into a thread at this point. I stand by my questioning of the "poor" and how this group could be so obese, entertained and well supplied with middle-class wares. There's certainly a problem here, but it's not a lack of funding for entitlement programs.
As for being in the top 21%, I suppose you're going to attach a sanitized tax return or something to prove it? If not, why in the world did you mention it?
Quote from Random.Capital:
I agree with you. That trend is a direct route to revolution. Which means either redistribution at the point of a gun, or strong repression of the bulk of the population. Both mean blood on the streets. And both are independent of "logic" - they simply "are".
I would have thought the aftermath of the Cold War taught us both those outcomes are far more expensive than having a progressive bias in taxation, but apparently not.
I think I know what happened. In 1980, fiat money was released and tons of inflation exported to destroy the poor and middle class. They cannot fight inflation. However the rich actually outpaced inflation by doing what they do best. Protect their riches using outsourcing, granting stock options, firing workers, lobbying exemptions etc.etc.
Idiot! Where do you live, in TX? You call yourself logic man? You are anything but logical. I assume you are in Texas (rich in oil) most con(RED) states are dirt poor - Louisiana, Mississippi, etc are all red states. Your ideology and knowledge of facts is very poor! All you cite is Texas- fucken Texas can seceded tomorrow with you! and with their shitty weather and giant cockroaches. The rest are Ag states, fuck them too, just buy their grain.... wherever there is brain (Colorado etc are Blue states)
Quote from logic_man:
Seriously. All this animosity could be over TOMORROW if that happened. Last I checked, there's nothing holding the country together other than a piece of paper that says it's a single country.
The fact is, as you say, the few (very few) Leftists with brains know who really foots the bill for their idiotic schemes and how sustainable their utopia would be without that cash flow.