| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
gwb, Were you referring to the Kennedy's or was that yust good ole fashioned gwb bashing by gwb? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What about the Roosevelts? With wealth comes power. Always has. Always will. Destroying wealth in order to reduce its influence on power is like boiling a baby to kill an infection. | ||
| Sifo |
So the old saying goes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It looks like that isn't the way it's going though. Looks like the poor are getting richer too, as well as the middle class. In fact we are all getting richer. This is according to the report that Doug_s seems to be fond of.
So if we are all getting better off why do we have this class bigotry going on? Clearly the rich are NOT stealing wealth from anybody. Can someone please explain this to me? My small mind just doesn't understand this sort of class hatred. | ||
| Glitch |
Harley-Davidson is leaving Milwaukee? | ||
| Sifo |
Milwaukee has been closed. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I can already hear the retort: "Yeah, but the rich got richer at 10 times the rate of the bottom 20%." | ||
| Sifo |
I'm expecting that argument, so let's jump to what should the ratio be and why? It is the wealthy that builds the businesses that provide the jobs that makes wealth available for everybody. Would we be better off if everybody only go richer by 2% over that same period? Then there would be parity, of course we would all be poorer. It's going to be hard selling the idea that taking money from the wealthy will build businesses and provide jobs for everybody. It just doesn't work that way. | ||
| Swampy |
But what is the ratio of the bottom to the top? Are there more bottom then before? If there is more in the bottom 20% that 20% would have to be spread thinner then the top 5% and there wouldn't be enough to go around. Also is there more people on welfare? That would take from the rest of the whole. | ||
| Buellerandy |
It's not that our income isn't going up coughinflationcough but look at the cost of living. The whole point of turning 18 in America is to get you as deep in debt as possible. I mean in 2000 a jeep wrangler cost 14k base msrp. 10 years later for almost the SAME exact make an equipment, your looking at 24k. It's just an example, obviously 18 yr olds don't need new vehicles but just saying, prices are increasing at a much more rapid pace than our wages to match. | ||
| Brumbear |
You know I gotta say something maybe I am wrong but the rich have always been and always will be rich. I don't care how rich it has no effect on me. The middle class is getting OUR ASSES kicked by welfare medicare for the undesrving pisspoor goverment spending and job quota's putting unqualified people in jobs and goverments making rich people not want to invest in making American stuff anymore be it UL rules epa rules or just simple hands out for a little zoning grease.Thats where our money is, the goverment aint gonna go after the rich people to hard where else they gonna get there donations they know we got squat left. | ||
| Sifo |
It's just an example, obviously 18 yr olds don't need new vehicles but just saying, prices are increasing at a much more rapid pace than our wages to match. I guess you missed the part about the wage numbers being inflation adjusted. Real wages went up during that time period for all income groups. | ||
| Gwb |
Sifo said: Unless you want to give it to your family apparently. Family farm, business, etc. will just have to be broken up and sold. Beyond that you have just taken away the incentive to build a business beyond just meeting your immediate needs. I have no problem with people inheriting a few million dollars, a family farm, etc. What I object to are a few wealthy families owning our country. I don't want to confiscate your family's farm, I want to confiscate your inherited "birthright" to own our country, to pass down ownership of our country from generation to undeserving generation. | ||
| Sifo |
So you are talking about the Kennedy's. Seriously, who gets to decide what's deserved and what's undeserved? | ||
| Cyclonedon |
If Harley moves it's operations out of Milwaukee, I think They will officially be done as far as an American motorcycle company. That might be the dumbest move they ever made, even worst than closing down the Buell Motorcycle Company. Right now the company is running on empty, just how much farther can it go? | ||
| Gwb |
Sifo said: So you are talking about the Kennedy's. Of _course_ I'm talking about the Kennedy's. And the Bush's and the Rockefeller's and the Romney's and the ... When a family can buy a congressional seat or a senate seat or a governorship or the presidency, using money and power inherited from previous generations of the family, that is undeserved!!! "All men are created equal." What do you think that means? Do you really think you are as "equal" as a Kennedy or a Bush or a Romney or a Rockefeller? People like that are called dukes and earls and counts and kings, i.e. your _family's_ status has more to do with what you achieve than does your ability. And whose concerns do you think they represent? Yours? (Message edited by gwb on August 10, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's not that our income isn't going up coughinflationcough but look at the cost of living. The whole point of turning 18 in America is to get you as deep in debt as possible. I mean in 2000 a jeep wrangler cost 14k base msrp. 10 years later for almost the SAME exact make an equipment, your looking at 24k. It's just an example, obviously 18 yr olds don't need new vehicles but just saying, prices are increasing at a much more rapid pace than our wages to match. Monetary policies that devalue the currency is a hidden tax levied on the lower and middle class. Your money buys less because the money is worth less. You can thank Obama for RAMPANT devaluation of our currency. | ||
| Buellerandy |
That's exactly what I was getting at bastard | ||
| Sifo |
"All men are created equal." What do you think that means? It means that we are all accountable under the laws of our country, it's not supposed to have anything to do with wealth. It certainly wasn't meant to mean that the government will take seize your assets when you gain too much. Looking at your profile you seem to be quite focused on this sort of thing, surely you have considered this aspect of the issue. Please answer, just how much wealth is deserved? So you still haven't answered my question. Who get's to decide what's deserved and what's undeserved? It's a critical question that needs to be answered in your scenario. | ||
| Sifo |
You can thank Obama for RAMPANT devaluation of our currency. We haven't even begun to feel the effects of BO's policies. BO's policies will cripple our country for generations. I actually have doubts that we will survive the effects of this administration as a country. | ||
| Doug_s |
sifo, only the top 5% have done better than the inflation rate. understand now? it was the created from 2000-2008 that has crippled this country for generations, not what's transpired in the two years since. what's happening now is the result of the past eight years, and would be no different regardless of who is presently in the whitey house. unless of course, you would have preferred nothing be done, (which no republican would have allowed either), which would have resulted in a collapse so total as to make the 1930's look like boom times. and other concrete ideas for what to do, are pretty much non-existent. except vague references to more laissez-fair economics and corporate welfare, which is what got us into the mess in the first place... it's easy to create a complete mess, then step aside and throw rocks at the one who follows, trying to clean it up... doug s. | ||
| Sifo |
sifo, only the top 5% have done better than the inflation rate. understand now? Well the report you keep quoting states otherwise. Clearly you don't actually look at data when you make your statements of "facts". Which leads to your statement of "fact" about 2000-2008 crippling the country, but the past 2 years are not a factor. That is pure fantasy. That was a period of very low inflation and for the most part economic growth. The policies of BO are setting us up for unsustainable spending on permanent programs. This doesn't even get into the spending from the stimulus slush funds that they keep passing. You really would do well to look at some actual economic data.  | ||
| Gwb |
Sifo said: So you still haven't answered my question. Who get's to decide what's deserved and what's undeserved? If I understand your question, you're not opposed to the idea, you just want to know how it would be implemented? Good question. To answer your question: We ALL get to decide. It's OUR country too ! ! ! What is more "American" than a desire for equality of opportunity, and the fear that great wealth leads to political corruption? (Message edited by gwb on August 10, 2010) | ||
| Buellkowski |
You can thank Obama for RAMPANT devaluation of our currency. How rampant? Last I heard we were in danger of deflation, not inflation. I actually have doubts that we will survive the effects of this administration as a country. I think our country will survive. Pendulums swing, money changes hands, etc. I certainly don't hope folks are envisioning another Civil War as a foregone conclusion. Relevant to this thread, I was born & raised in Metro Milwaukee. I spent a great many of my summer vacations in the family chrome-plating plant making H-D production bits shiny. These days, as a cubicle-dweller, I am truly nostalgic for those earlier times. I truly hope H-D manufacturing stays put, one way or another. | ||
| Sifo |
You still haven't answered the question. I am very much against it, I was just hoping that you might be able to think it through. I'll help you. The people that will decide this for you are the people in power. They are either currently wealthy or working towards that. They will see to it that they have a pathway to wealth and power. They will certainly find ways to shelter themselves from these new rules. Much of the sheltering will probably wind up being done by moving assets outside of our borders, not unlike what is being done by corporations looking to reduce their tax burden (confiscation of wealth). Have you ever considered why in virtually all Communist run countries the working class is generally quite poor? Are the ruling class living the same lifestyle? Of course not. Who gets to decide the wages of the workers in these countries? It certainly isn't the workers. They aren't free to improve themselves and search for better opportunities that will provide more wealth for themselves. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Part of the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to create a functional government with the smallest footprint possible. It's the abdication and abandonment of this principal that has created all of the problems we are experiencing today. If you don't want the wealthy involved in politics, remove the incentive for them to. People don't enter politics for the "good of society". People enter politics for the benefits provided to them, for the power politics grants them, and for the riches politics will bring them. There isn't a single politician who leaves government service less wealthy than when they entered. The intent of limited government was to limit the scope of government. If we limit the role of government ONLY to the 18 enumerated powers under Article 1, Section 8, the ability to create wealth as a result of serving the government is diminished. If you want to remove money from politics, remove the money from government. Why take the time away from the creation of private sector wealth to serve the government generation after generation if there is no money in it. Government service should be a sacrifice not an opportunity for personal and financial advancement. | ||
| Sifo |
If you don't want the wealthy involved in politics, remove the incentive for them to. We have a winner! I'm just not clear how that will ever happen without an armed revolt. It is a predictable path of a democracy (yes, a democratic republic for the purists) that it will degrade down this path of selfishness of power and money. The only way other than armed revolt that I see out of this is if the people will stop accepting the bread crumbs that are offered by those who want your vote and actually vote for those that will give you the free will to make it on your own, or fail of your own accord. We are at that tipping point of taking the last of the bread crumbs. We are witnessing wealth fleeing our once great country. | ||
| Gwb |
Sifo, I am not for wage control. How you read my posts and got to that is beyond me. I am in great favor of each person having the opportunity to become as rich as his abilities allow. And to spend his riches however he wants. That's part of the American dream and I am _completely_ in favor of it for _everyone_. What I am against are the small group of power-elite families that control the majority of our country's wealth. This great power allows them to continually rig the system in their favor. I believe our country's current woes are a direct result. I also believe in term limits, Sifo. How un-American do you think that is? | ||
| Doug_s |
sifo, only the top 5% have done better than the inflation rate. understand now? Well the report you keep quoting states otherwise. Clearly you don't actually look at data when you make your statements of "facts". Which leads to your statement of "fact" about 2000-2008 crippling the country, but the past 2 years are not a factor. That is pure fantasy. That was a period of very low inflation and for the most part economic growth. The policies of BO are setting us up for unsustainable spending on permanent programs. This doesn't even get into the spending from the stimulus slush funds that they keep passing. You really would do well to look at some actual economic data. i don't care who is in office the past two years, there would have been no change at all regarding using deficit spending trying to prewent the total collapse of the economy if john mccain were elected. (which he might have been if he didn't pick such a retard as his running mate.) the bailout process started even before the election, in september of 2008. and, sifo, you really need to brush up on your math. according to the stats you posted, not even the top 5% have kept up w/the rate of inflation. plug the salary rates into the year "1975" and see how much you would need to make to equal it in 2001. or 2008, or 2009...  http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Term limits are only necessary to remove the pigs nose from the trough. If you want the pig to leave voluntarily, remove the slop. If you force folks with wealth to spend it or you confiscate it, you diminish the drive to build wealth in the first place. Why expand a business and delay the gratification of the earnings if the government could confiscate it at any time. Pretty sure George Steinbrenner didn't intend to die on his birthday. Unfortunately, even the federal government can't control the timing if your death. Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to redistribute wealth? | ||
| Doug_s |
"...If you force folks with wealth to spend it or you confiscate it, you diminish the drive to build wealth in the first place. ..." i have never understood the idiocy of this train of thought. all people will suddenly stop wanting to get rich if they're taxed at a higher rate?  doug s. |
