[Blue Lion]

The flaw in your argument is that an aristocracy doesn't usually work 80 to 100 hours a week.

I think the flaw in your argument was he was talking more about businesses and not the workers. So unless a business works 80-100 hours a week you've tried to jump horses mid race.

[General Battuta]

The flaw in your argument is that an aristocracy doesn't usually work 80 to 100 hours a week.

Neither do the wealth-holders; the two stations are essentially comparable.

You're under the illusion that these people received their stations largely by dessert. One does not get ahead by hard work.

[Liberator]

I believe this man:

would disagree with you.

[SpardaSon21]

Yeah GB, you've talked about the lack of upwards mobility.  And your solution is to just give money to the middle class in the hope they'll do something with it?  The only possible way the middle class will get ahead is through creating their own wealth, not merely having it taken from the rich and given to them.  Too much redistribution will kill wealth creation, and that will cause economic stagnation and lack of mobility.  Increased opportunities for small business creation and for small business owners to create and hold onto wealth is what will create upwards mobility.  Also, increasing income taxes to pay for redistribution may backfire since a lot of small businesses are subchapter-S corporations which count company profits as personal income for the owners.

[General Battuta]

No, giving money to the middle class is not my solution.

I don't have a specific solution. Stop leaping to conclusions about my political views.

Liberator: did you mean to shoot yourself in the foot? Because Donald Trump is the son of a wealthy real estate magnate. So you're proving the point that the rich get richer, but not much else.

[Nuclear1]

I'm really confused.

Liberator complains about how the elite are ruining this country, then he jumps right back to defend the rights of Donald Trump and other CEOs to get richer.

SpardaSon complains about the lack of compassion in America, then goes on to bash a system that's going to take care of people at the expense of a rich guy's sixth Porsche.

Both say America's hope lies in small businesses in small towns across the country, but both jump to defend the huge corporations that enter (either with or against the town's wishes) and suck small businesses dry since they can't compete.

You're both confusing me.

The reason I argue for taxing the rich to make life better for the sick and starving is because I care--with a few notable exceptions you don't see a fat chunk of a rich guy's paycheck going towards funding soup kitchens or paying their employees' medical bills.  That's why the government has to step in and say "Alright, you can't be a selfish prick anymore--these people need it a lot more than you."

And government regulations exist so they can't monopolize or drive small businesses out.  And you're all arguing against those regulations.

[Liberator]

SpardaSon complains about the lack of compassion in America, then goes on to bash a system that's going to take care of people at the expense of a rich guy's sixth Porsche.

Except that you have scaled rich down so low, that you aren't talking about some guy's 6th Porche, you are talking about affecting a person's ability to care for they're families the way they see fit.  You are doing the one thing freedom loving people shouldn't, you are affecting one person's freedom in a negative way to effect another person's freedom, also in a negative way.  The only fairness in a system based on "leveling the playing field" or "giving back to the poor" is the equality of misery.

And government regulations exist so they can't monopolize or drive small businesses out.  And you're all arguing against those regulations.

I'm not arguing against reasonable regulation, hell, most of the corporations being regulated accept the idea that they need to be regulated.  But you aren't talking about regulation, you are talking about onerous, irresponsible levels of taxation that are going to affect the ability of the private sector to pull us out of this recession. 

If you look at the employment statistics, the only sector that has been holding steady in employment is the public sector, federal and most state employees.  The private sector, the actual wealth generation part of the economy, isn't hiring people.  The oncoming regulations and taxes are forcing them not to, simply because they can't afford it.

[General Battuta]

SpardaSon complains about the lack of compassion in America, then goes on to bash a system that's going to take care of people at the expense of a rich guy's sixth Porsche.

Except that you have scaled rich down so low, that you aren't talking about some guy's 6th Porche, you are talking about affecting a person's ability to care for they're families the way they see fit.

Are you actually reading here? Again, the top 1% of the population controls something like 65-80% of the wealth. How is that scaled down so low?

[Liberator]

Not even talking about that battuta, you've scaled down the definition of rich to $200k or below.  How many people do you know that make $200k?  More than a couple I'll bet.  You are talking about raising the taxes of close to 60 or 70% of the population by a large margin to pay for a gimme program for 20% in what is essentially a vote buying scheme.

Also, I never said the "elite" were killing this country, it's the gods damned politicians.  They're supposed to provide moral leadership as well as legal but they are providing neither.

[General Battuta]

Not even talking about that battuta, you've scaled down the definition of rich to $200k or below.  How many people do you know that make $200k?  More than a couple I'll bet.  You are talking about raising the taxes of close to 60 or 70% of the population by a large margin to pay for a gimme program for 20% in what is essentially a vote buying scheme.

Also, I never said the "elite" were killing this country, it's the gods damned politicians.  They're supposed to provide moral leadership as well as legal but they are providing neither.

Tell me exactly what percentage of the population earns above 200k.

[NGTM-1R]

Not even talking about that battuta, you've scaled down the definition of rich to $200k or below.  How many people do you know that make $200k?  More than a couple I'll bet.  You are talking about raising the taxes of close to 60 or 70% of the population by a large margin to pay for a gimme program for 20% in what is essentially a vote buying scheme.

I'm not convinced you're actually reading Battuta's posts or forming opinions based on them anymore.

[General Battuta]

Liberator, you're a joke. You just claimed that 60-70% of the population made more than 200k. The actual figure is 3%.

Three percent.

Seriously, where do you get your figures? You do not occupy the same reality as anyone else I know.

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, the only reason I know anyone that makes over $200K is because I came from a fairly-affluent area in central Indiana, and even then it was limited to the people who bought their third house out on the nearby reservoir and owned a couple boats. 

I'm talking about taxing the absolute richest to pay for the--

Oh what's the ****ing point...

[NGTM-1R]

Seriously, where do you get your figures? You do not occupy the same reality as anyone else I know.

Fun fact: only the Speaker of the House makes over 200k a year in congressional salaries. I'm also fairly sure you don't make that much even as an O-6 (Colonel/Captain) but I can't find actual figures. I know you make just under 200k as a GS-15.

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, government/military salaries aren't that fantastic...but the overall benefits outweigh that.

[Kosh]

I see that the libs seem to use Fox as a scapegoat. Every time a republican disagrees it's because Fox brainwashed them.

You can tell when their counter points sound identical to what is coming out of Fox.

And I'm willing to bet $$$ that Lib doesn't feel need anyone to look out for him, and that includes Fox and the GOP.

So even though he lives with his mom and has almost nothing, he always complains about elites shafting to country, but turns around and defends them. Doublethink. Like it or not the government is looking after you, with health and safety regulations to ensure a safe work environment, with pollution regulations to ensure we dont frak up our water and air any more (leading to drastic improvements in the quality of the environment in the US). 

[Liberator]

Like it or not the government is looking after you, with health and safety regulations to ensure a safe work environment, with pollution regulations to ensure we dont frak up our water and air any more (leading to drastic improvements in the quality of the environment in the US).

Except up until now, they haven't been acting like a deity telling us "Thou shalt drive this car." or "Thou shalt eat this food."   Now they are.

[iamzack]

Yeah they have. Ever notice the way they tell us we're not allowed to snort coke or smoke pot, or drink before we're 21? There's your nanny-state.

[Deka1184]

iamzack; 0, 100, or 50 percent sarcastic? 

[iamzack]

0%

I'm pretty sure it's the government's job to inform me of the dangers of something, not prevent me from taking the risk. Liberator's worried about a little tax on **** that will kill us anyway (cigarettes, mcdonald's, etc) but doesn't seem to mind actual government interference.