Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

183. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 16:34 Wowbagger_TIP
Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:25:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 15:57:
I guess being against wealth redistribution, ie stealing to give to those who don't earn it, is a keyword for intolerance these days. Keep living in libtard disney world, it's worked out great for us the last 4 years. When we're 20 trillion in debt and at 15%+ unemployment in 4 years don't say I told ya so.
Lol, I love how you continually fail to respond to the arguments in the posts you reply to, but always try to change the subject. Then that gets rebutted, and you change the subject again. Some people are just incapable of dealing with reality.

He also calls redistribution of wealth stealing. He fails to acknowledge that our taxation is a redistribution of wealth. I already posted a graph that showed that the top 1% (I hate that term, due to Occupy Wall Street lunacy) had under 20% of the wealth in the mid 70s and now has about 40%.

What is that if not a redistribution of the wealth? In order for the 1% to gain a higher percentage, other portions had to lose a percentage. And, given that the lower 40% or 50% had nothing to give, that all came from the middle class.

Redistribution of the wealth was fine to him when it went to the few, but when it goes to the many it's a bad thing. Simple fact: wealth has been redistributed in this country twice already. FDR gave it to the middle class, and we went from times like The Jungle to times like the 50s and 60s. Reagan gave it back to the wealthy. I'm not saying that we'll go back to the Jungle, or that it's class warfare, or any of those things.
I'm just saying our economy was strongest and growing quickest when the ultra rich weren't controlling all of the wealth, more people had money to spend, and there was less incentive to not pay your employees as well.

I agree with that. There seems to be a snowball effect as well. They will continually grow wealthier, not only because their current wealth works for them, but also because they have a much greater influence on government policy than middle class people do. You have to get millions of middle class folks on the same page to have any effect. But you've got guys like Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, or the Koch brothers, who can have a major effect for or against your campaign, all on their own. So it's in the interests of politicians to stay on their good side and keep things working in their favor.
Avatar 9540
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo