Obscene Wealth

[Iolo2]

Lefties just want other peoples money nit realizing its what they already get. The rub ultimstely is the concept of earning.

The rich steal, we take it back. Hang the original thieving buggers, and let's get on.

 

[BigRob]

Now, that is the second time you have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, so that is twice you have made a fool of yourself.

Yes - often I directly quote a post from another user in an effort to reply to your comments.

Do you know who Lysander Spooner, Adam Smith, or Thomas Jefferson, were among others? They were people who believed in the worker to the point where Spooner said the wealthy sponged off the capital, and labor, of the workers; Smith said that the working man creates the wealth of the nation; and Jefferson believed that only the rich should pay taxes. Now we live in a time where greed rules all, and anyone, even Christ Himself, who disagrees is a "welch". So, while your rich idols may pay half of the countries taxes, they also collect 85% of the wealth generated. Since the "wealthy" only represent 1-5% of the population is it your opinion that while they share that 85% of the wealth created, that the other 95% of the population should fight over the remaining 15% of the wealth?

http://www.alternet.org/story/145705/the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back/

Let's spell out the argument here:

Lolo2: "The rich - here anyway - pay accountants, not taxes. And, as you know, every penny they have is stolen from those who do the work for them. Because you are naïve is no reason for others to behave like mugs."

BigRob: "You have no idea what you are talking about. It is a demonstrable fact that the "rich" pay the lion share of taxes."

OldTrapper: "Now, that is the second time you have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, so that is twice you have made a fool of yourself." (what??)... "So, while your rich idols may pay half of the countries taxes, they also collect 85% of the wealth generated."

Notice what you did here. You admit that my comment is correct (because as I say, it is demonstrably correct) and then quickly introduce a red herring to change the subject. Equivocate all you would like...facts are facts, and the fact is that the "rich" pay the lion share of taxes.

 

[BigRob]

How do the wealthy "earn" their money? Bloated government contracts? Subsidies from the government? How about selling stuff to the poor who get governemt assistance? Bailouts? Tax shaleters offshore? Paying their workers less then what the worker can live on?

Just how do they earn their money?

I'll begin by borrowing a quote from you: "First off, you should really learn to spell, or use spell check." (shaleters)

I will end with a question. Do you believe that it is impossible to earn any type of wealth in this without being propped up by a government? That seems to be your argument.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes - often I directly quote a post from another user in an effort to reply to your comments.



Let's spell out the argument here:

Lolo2: "The rich - here anyway - pay accountants, not taxes. And, as you know, every penny they have is stolen from those who do the work for them. Because you are naïve is no reason for others to behave like mugs."

BigRob: "You have no idea what you are talking about. It is a demonstrable fact that the "rich" pay the lion share of taxes."

OldTrapper: "Now, that is the second time you have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, so that is twice you have made a fool of yourself." (what??)... "So, while your rich idols may pay half of the countries taxes, they also collect 85% of the wealth generated."

Notice what you did here. You admit that my comment is correct (because as I say, it is demonstrably correct) and then quickly introduce a red herring to change the subject. Equivocate all you would like...facts are facts, and the fact is that the "rich" pay the lion share of taxes.

Standard procedure when debating the u
indefenseable

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I'll begin by borrowing a quote from you: "First off, you should really learn to spell, or use spell check." (shaleters)

I will end with a question. Do you believe that it is impossible to earn any type of wealth in this without being propped up by a government? That seems to be your argument.

Not my argument at all. My argument is the same as that of say Adam Smith, Spooner, or Jefferson, et.al.. The wealthy will always find a way to use government to increase their wealth. It is the duty for the government to prevent that. However, the government has failed.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Standard procedure when debating the u
indefenseable

There is nothing "indefensible" about one sharing in the wealth of the nation, or having the opportunity to do so. What is indefensible is standing by accepting ones role as a serf while defending their lord, and masters.

 

[BigRob]

Not my argument at all. My argument is the same as that of say Adam Smith, Spooner, or Jefferson, et.al.. The wealthy will always find a way to use government to increase their wealth. It is the duty for the government to prevent that. However, the government has failed.

Ok - so you assert the "wealthy" use government to increase their wealth - which is not a good thing. So the solution is to use government to increase the wealth of the non wealthy? If using the government to increase wealth is wrong - why is it ok for any group to do it?

How do you even define "wealthy"? Seems to be that is just an arbitrary numbers assigned to us by...the government. The same government that you want to use to increase the wealth of non wealthy people - without ever defining what wealthy is.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Ok - so you assert the "wealthy" use government to increase their wealth - which is not a good thing. So the solution is to use government to increase the wealth of the non wealthy? If using the government to increase wealth is wrong - why is it ok for any group to do it?

How do you even define "wealthy"? Seems to be that is just an arbitrary numbers assigned to us by...the government. The same government that you want to use to increase the wealth of non wealthy people - without ever defining what wealthy is.

The definition of "wealthy" for the most part is defined by economists. Christ addressed the issue when He was on the earth. However, we are not talking about "wealth", which could be defined as having one dollar more then your neighbor, we are talking about "obscene wealth" which is having more wealth then millions of people.

Now, why is it appropriate for government to interfere? For the benefit of the country as a whole. For instance, look at a country like Saudi Arabia with its kingdom mannerisms. What opportunity do the people have to advance, or improve their lot. None is the answer. That is the same quality of life we are beginning to see here in the US. The Founding Fathers sought to establish a country where the natural rights of Natures God were the priority, not for the few, but for the many. Here are just a few of the limitations the Founders sought to apply to corporations the source of the obscene wealth:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

And what do we have now? The same system as found in any plutocracy, oligarchy, or corptocracy.

 

[dogtowner]

Wealth has nothing to do with one having one more than the next. It is just the yardstick to measure the rewards if one's efforts.
You seek to make it appear undesirable to obtain some particular degree of reward for one's effort because others did not.
Not buying it.

 

[BigRob]

The definition of "wealthy" for the most part is defined by economists. Christ addressed the issue when He was on the earth. However, we are not talking about "wealth", which could be defined as having one dollar more then your neighbor, we are talking about "obscene wealth" which is having more wealth then millions of people.

Put a number on it....what is "wealthy"? It is basically an arbitrary number based on the perspective of the person making the comment.

Now, why is it appropriate for government to interfere? For the benefit of the country as a whole. For instance, look at a country like Saudi Arabia with its kingdom mannerisms. What opportunity do the people have to advance, or improve their lot. None is the answer.

Yes...not much is the answer - because of the government. Shouldn't the solution to a government mandated problem be less government...not more?

That is the same quality of life we are beginning to see here in the US. The Founding Fathers sought to establish a country where the natural rights of Natures God were the priority, not for the few, but for the many.

And what rights are you deprived of exactly?

Here are just a few of the limitations the Founders sought to apply to corporations the source of the obscene wealth:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

And what do we have now? The same system as found in any plutocracy, oligarchy, or corptocracy.

A corporation is at the core nothing more than a group of people that are allowed to legally operate as one entity. I fail to see why the structure is given so much grief.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Wealth has nothing to do with one having one more than the next. It is just the yardstick to measure the rewards if one's efforts.
You seek to make it appear undesirable to obtain some particular degree of reward for one's effort because others did not.
Not buying it.

That is the argument one hears most from the right wing uneducated. There is nothing wrong with one receiving a reward for ones labor. However, there is something wrong when that reward comes at the expense of others, and by using amoral practices. Drug cartels make millions of dollars every year. Under your "logic" that is a desirable result.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Put a number on it....what is "wealthy"? It is basically an arbitrary number based on the perspective of the person making the comment.

I believe that is what I said.

Yes...not much is the answer - because of the government. Shouldn't the solution to a government mandated problem be less government...not more?

If the problem were solely that of the government.

And what rights are you deprived of exactly?

Another right wing comment showing little intellectual thought. Due to the recession caused by the corporations in collusion with government, many lost their homes, and thus the right to own property. Under the SCOTUS ruling in Kelos the people have lost their right to property in favor of the corporation. Then SCOTUS further took away rights in the Citizen United ruling which gave more influence over government to the corporation then to the individual. Copyright laws are being done away with. Religious rights are being eliminated. It isn't that one has completely lost all of their rights, or even one. It is that they are being curtailed upon.

A corporation is at the core nothing more than a group of people that are allowed to legally operate as one entity. I fail to see why the structure is given so much grief.

Prior to the trade agreement fiasco small businesses hired, or created, 80% of the jobs. However, since the control of the market has been expanded to the corporate world small businesses now create less then 60% of the jobs, and that is declining. Competition has virtually been destroyed to the point where it matters not where you shop the prices will be the same. 5 corporations mill 80% of the grain in this country. How mamy corporations control the fuel market? While there is still some competition among the distributors, there is little among the manufacturers. We now have fewer family farms since they have been sold out to "factory farms". Then there are the banks which consistently by up smaller banks.

 

[BigRob]

I believe that is what I said.

So we are arguing over something that is arbitrary and no one can define with any precision?

Another right wing comment showing little intellectual thought. Due to the recession caused by the corporations in collusion with government, many lost their homes, and thus the right to own property.

No one lost their right to own property. That is completely absurd. People took out loans they couldn't afford and then got burned for it. That not forfeiting your right to own property.

Under the SCOTUS ruling in Kelos the people have lost their right to property in favor of the corporation.

I can agree with some of this. I have had my fair share of fights with the government about eminent domain. Am actually involved in another one right now. I can see the merits, but generally agree that eminent domain for private companies is outrageous.

Then SCOTUS further took away rights in the Citizen United ruling which gave more influence over government to the corporation then to the individual.

It only did that in the talking points. The talking points fundamentally misunderstand the Citizens United ruling, and the reality that has since occurred. Citizens United was a correct ruling that simply stated people have free speech, even when they organize themselves into a corporation, or union etc.

Copyright laws are being done away with. Religious rights are being eliminated. It isn't that one has completely lost all of their rights, or even one. It is that they are being curtailed upon.

Do elaborate on the copyright laws and the alleged loss of religious rights?

Prior to the trade agreement fiasco small businesses hired, or created, 80% of the jobs. However, since the control of the market has been expanded to the corporate world small businesses now create less then 60% of the jobs, and that is declining.

This is false information. From the SBA.gov
"Small firms accounted for 64 percent of the net new jobs created between 1993 and 2011 (or 11.8 million of the 18.5 million net new jobs). Since the latest recession, from mid-2009 to 2011, small firms, led by the larger ones in the category (20-499 employees), accounted for 67 percent of the net new jobs."

Competition has virtually been destroyed to the point where it matters not where you shop the prices will be the same.

...competition would seemingly be a large driver in evening out prices within a market.

5 corporations mill 80% of the grain in this country. How mamy corporations control the fuel market? While there is still some competition among the distributors, there is little among the manufacturers. We now have fewer family farms since they have been sold out to "factory farms". Then there are the banks which consistently by up smaller banks.

So what?

 

[dogtowner]

That is the argument one hears most from the right wing uneducated. There is nothing wrong with one receiving a reward for ones labor. However, there is something wrong when that reward comes at the expense of others, and by using amoral practices. Drug cartels make millions of dollars every year. Under your "logic" that is a desirable result.

At the exoense of others ?
So if you discover a means to have others trade their wealth for your product thats "at the expense of others" ? Poppycock.

Drugs are in demand and govrrnment refuses to enforce laws or deenact them.

Sure drugs are bad for you but so is choclate lard but people want it anyway. You cant blame someone for filling a need.

Now if you want to bemoan amoral actions then fine but its got nothing to do with wealth being obscene.

 

[Iolo2]

Who does the work? Never the capitalists, so what use are the thieving buggers?