It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How Every American Seeking Work Can be Employed: Redistribution of Wealth from the 1%
page: 6share:
Of course there needs to be some rules to regulate the market - as too how many, and who defines those rules is up for question. There needs to be
some kind of middle ground, I am against a completely free market system, but come on - not for this spread the wealth crap either.
Everyone is worried about this 1%, we should be worried about the 0.1% - the real power elite. Those individuals who don't care about money, they are the ones who want to be able to decide who lives and who dies.....for the entire human race.
Everyone is worried about this 1%, we should be worried about the 0.1% - the real power elite. Those individuals who don't care about money, they are the ones who want to be able to decide who lives and who dies.....for the entire human race.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TKDRL
And that again reinforces my belief that what we truly need are anti-trust laws enforced, to prevent these huge mega-corporations from existing and to encourage competition, and less regulation otherwise to allow small businesses to start up and keep competition, innovation, and improvement alive and well.
TheRedneck
Very much agreed.
Every economic textbook IN THE WORLD pretty clearly states that free markets are ONLY efficient to the degree that the level of competition between firms is equal.
While "perfect competition" is universally as unattainable as utopia...the idea is that IF everyone is playing with pretty close to the same sets of rules, resources, etc. the free market is the most efficient form of economic organization.
Thus, in 1776 when Adam Smith published "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" the idea that Joe the Blacksmith might have any sort of insurmountable edge upon Bob the Blacksmith was for the most part inconceivable. You need fire, coal, an anvil, a forge, and a whole lot of know-how, skill, and hard work. If Bob's horseshoes last longer and tend to have a tighter fit...he thrives. This is just not the world we live in anymore.
Along with breaking up trusts...how about RECLASSIFYING the various types of "Corporations" too?. As it stands today a guy running a Mom & Pop $20 million dollar per year pallet-making company who is a "C- Corp." has the EXACT same set of rules as Exxon-Mobile who's annual revenues are LARGER than the GDP of [I]CANADA?[.I].
When companies get to be as big as Governments and start literally RAISING THEIR OWN MILITARIES (i.e. Blackwater, Xe, etc) we have to start coming up with some sort of framework to manage them. Today oil companies only have Apache attack choppers and mercenaries...do we really want to wait until they get a couple of aircraft carriers?
I seriously want to vomit when I hear these pundits talking about government regulation of "private" business in reference to these gigantic MNC empires.
You know when private business ISN'T private? WHEN IT'S PUBLIC!!! In my opinion, when your little "private" business wants to take PUBLIC money like your 401K and taxpayer funded government contracts, a new set of rules, standards, transparency, and harsher tax rates begin to apply.
The idea, of course, being to DISCOURAGE increased government spending the only way it's really possible....by making the ACCEPTANCE of government funding such a miserable, bureaucratic, over-complicated NIGHTMARE that instead of companies BRIBING politicians for their attention they will literally want to RUN AWAY from the graft.
Let's face it...we've been trying for 40 years to "simplify" government and it hasn't worked yet, right? Why not just let them do what they are good it...but to do it in THE RIGHT WAY that FIGHTS corruption rather than panders to it?
It's not the best solution...but Christ we gotta do something. It might at least give the human beings a snowballs chance in hell against these outfits.
reply to post by mossme89
Hey why not redistribute raping of the beautiful models and actresses also since only a small portion of the population are able to get them...I see no problem with applying your logic in other areas as well.
Hey my neighbor has a Ferrari but I don't, so let me put a gun to his head and force him to share...?
You know only the people with nothing, with no motivation (LOSERS) come up with this absurd crap...
If you logic or Obama logic ever truly came to be, I would retire from the Marine Corp the next day...
Sniper
Hey why not redistribute raping of the beautiful models and actresses also since only a small portion of the population are able to get them...I see no problem with applying your logic in other areas as well.
Hey my neighbor has a Ferrari but I don't, so let me put a gun to his head and force him to share...?
You know only the people with nothing, with no motivation (LOSERS) come up with this absurd crap...
If you logic or Obama logic ever truly came to be, I would retire from the Marine Corp the next day...
Sniper
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mossme89
Sooo if you're rich.. we take your money and give it to poor people because well .. they have no money.
So me, being in the middle, I'm far, far, far from rich but I'm not "poor" either. Why should I continue to work? Why shouldn't I just chill on my couch playing my xbox smoking pot all day? I mean, I'd get paid either way? Work and have people take my money.. or play xbox and get money with no work?
I see no incentive to work. Certainly no incentive to make a business, create products, innovate.... people will just profit from my work while I make the same as them? F that.. I'll sit on my couch.
That sounds more like the rich to me.
Maybe because you want to keep up with the people around you and afford to purchase luxuries, jewelry, clothing or travel.
If you can fix something easily but don't ...I don't think it makes sense. Ethically or morally and we should not have to enact laws or beg. It is a drop in the bucket and the rich should come forward and provide it. A band-aide, call it a loan or an investment - make it tax deductible, until the country is set on a forward tack.
And with a plan. Liberals want everyone to work but as soon as it is suggested somebody screams socialist.
Everyman has a skill or craft or trade. If they do not it is rewarding and beneficial for the spirit and (lets make it the community) to learn one and have everyone contribute. In any corporation and family they will work best if everyone is participating and none are left out. Even psychologists will tell you that. Eventually the vegetative unwell, tired lazy couch potatoes would drop off into obscurity like "the tail."
edit on 18-3-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)
Funny how usually only those without as much as they want/need, and lacking the self motivation to get it through sweat, brains, and self improvement
posit such notions. To those who have EARNED it such systems are highly offensive. That is why all communist systems in the past have only been
brought about by bloodshed, and a lot of it. Trotsky anyone? After the commies kill off all the movers, and shakers they wonder why their society
stinks of stagnation, and apathy. Yet they invision themselves as enlightened, and intellectual, yet their model goes against the very basics of
nature, and survival. Darwin was right, and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. If you are too dumb, maladaptive, and/or lazy to survive...DON'T!
and for God's sake don't procreate.
It's like a mouse demanding the right to roar, and hunt gazelle. So the government kills off all the lions opposed to letting field mice share in their hunt(most all of them) only to realize the mouse is comletely incapable of hunting gazelle, even with absolutely no competition.
I worked hard, and learned a lot, and went through hell to get where I am, and quite frankly I have never met a socialist, "gimme freebies." mentality that was competent to do my job, so you don't deserve to make as much money as I do. If you did talk the government into paying you as much as I make for the pathetic work the average "redistributionist" is capable of performing, I and most of my co-workers would quit, and then you would start dying because I'm the guy that saves your ass when you are sick, or hurt.
Socialism is basically communism lite. Only works in small environments, or in a perfect world. It's a great big, imperfect world. Your argument is invalid.
It's like a mouse demanding the right to roar, and hunt gazelle. So the government kills off all the lions opposed to letting field mice share in their hunt(most all of them) only to realize the mouse is comletely incapable of hunting gazelle, even with absolutely no competition.
I worked hard, and learned a lot, and went through hell to get where I am, and quite frankly I have never met a socialist, "gimme freebies." mentality that was competent to do my job, so you don't deserve to make as much money as I do. If you did talk the government into paying you as much as I make for the pathetic work the average "redistributionist" is capable of performing, I and most of my co-workers would quit, and then you would start dying because I'm the guy that saves your ass when you are sick, or hurt.
Socialism is basically communism lite. Only works in small environments, or in a perfect world. It's a great big, imperfect world. Your argument is invalid.
You must be a Democrat. Nobody is more generous with other people's money than a Democrat.
But what I have never seen is, take your salary, whatever it is, and find some unemployed person and split your combined income between the two of you.
This would mean, bottom line, that you give half your paycheck to him every payday.
Let me know how that works out.
But I never see anyone who talks about redistributing the wealth doing that. They always seem to be all for redistributing the wealth as long as it is someone else's wealth.
So please continue to post and let us know how that unemployed person is doing now that he's receiving half your income. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to be kept up to date on that
But what I have never seen is, take your salary, whatever it is, and find some unemployed person and split your combined income between the two of you.
This would mean, bottom line, that you give half your paycheck to him every payday.
Let me know how that works out.
But I never see anyone who talks about redistributing the wealth doing that. They always seem to be all for redistributing the wealth as long as it is someone else's wealth.
So please continue to post and let us know how that unemployed person is doing now that he's receiving half your income. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to be kept up to date on that
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by mossme89
Citizens of America are NOT EMPLOYEES of the GOVERNMENT. Those idiots work for us….we don’t work for them! We decide what THEY make and not the other way around.
A very wise man once said:
Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people. - Grover Cleveland
edit on 16-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)
We are not employees of the government? More like extortion victims of a rigged tax code.
Those idiots work for us? More like taxation without representation.
We decide what they make?
The goverment should not support the people?
Tell me, what need have I of this government?
edit on 2012/3/18 by Another10Pin because: .
Originally posted by Wolf321
Originally posted by Leftist
Only because they have a lack of other viable choices. Yes, on paper they can "sit and starve." But real life doesn't work that way.
It is the same "freedom" as the "freedom" of the slave consents to slavery "freely" by his work. After all, he could always choose freely to be lashed and whipped instead, right?
Once again, getting beaten is not freedom. If you try to reference something again, please keep it in the realm of actual freedom.
An individual can choose not to work for a given wage. That is freedom. If everyone agrees that the job should be paid more, it remains unfilled until the position raises the offer to the point that someone agrees. A business needs its employees just as much as an employee needs a job.
One aspect of the problem of no jobs in the US, isn't actually the lack of jobs. It's the lack of any number of a certain type of jobs. If you have a college degree and lost your job in the collapse, do you go on unemployment while you look for a similar job or do you take anything that is available? Most people expect to wait for something they are either trained in or that is closer to what they made before. They aren't willing to readjust their life to a new lower rate or to do a job they either weren't trained in or they think they are overqualified for. The only reason employers have resisted hiring 'over-qualified' people in the past is because of attitude and a lack of humility. he current environment has humbled many and many employers would hirer someone with maturity and skill for the same wage as someone without.
Here is a link (somewhat dated) that provides an interesting twist to the 'college degree' aspect of your statement.
Why did 17 million students go to college?
reply to post by mossme89
Who are you to say they need help? I have the right, under your system, to claim I need help, because I don't want to work if you can help me otherwise.
Who are you to say they need help? I have the right, under your system, to claim I need help, because I don't want to work if you can help me otherwise.
Originally posted by Wolf321
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
Yet everyone keeps reelecting the same people or same flavor of people.
editby]edit on 16-3-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)
I have been looking for someone else to vote into office for some time, but they are all the same. As you say, the same flavor of people. I can no longer distinguish between a republican or democrat ... they are both various shades of the color of sh*t. And the independents? Ron Paul? Ross Perot? When you vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils, they are still evil. Where is another viable candidate? For president or congress?
reply to post by marinesniper0317
Hey, did you notice the age of the OP? Put a cover on that grape ...
Hey, did you notice the age of the OP? Put a cover on that grape ...
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by mossme89
Create a maximum wage. Make it 15 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. I know some people say to make it 100x, but that's $15,000 compared to $1,500,000. Nobody needs that amount of money, especially when others are suffering.
I have a question? What in the hell gives you or anybody else the right to decide what an individual American should or should not earn?
Wealth redistribution is unconstitutional.
The utopian schemes of leveling [wealth redistribution] and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional. - Samuel Adams
edit on 16-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)
I have a counter-question...
What in the HELL gives you or anybody else the right to decide that the economic system should be allowed to exist and that people should be forced to obey its need for wage-slavery, monetary accumulation, debt, ownership, cutthroat economics, over-consumption, and massive wealth gaps??
At the end of the day, the modern (or even remotely similar) Capitalist quasi-laissez-faire system we have is just as tyrannical as government, except in a soft-coercive economic fashion rather than a hard-coercive governmental fashion.
.. and here is a video of Bert and Ernie that demonstrates the lunacy of left wing ideology at it's very core.
Forcing someone to share is the same as stealing and at some point those who have can no longer be robbed.
What happens next?
Those who "have not" will start turning on each other, especially on the "once have nots" that invested wisely after the first plunder.
Bottom line, you need the one percent, you want the one percent otherwise it's trickle up poverty for all - (if I may steal a Michael Savagism )
Forcing someone to share is the same as stealing and at some point those who have can no longer be robbed.
What happens next?
Those who "have not" will start turning on each other, especially on the "once have nots" that invested wisely after the first plunder.
Bottom line, you need the one percent, you want the one percent otherwise it's trickle up poverty for all - (if I may steal a Michael Savagism )
I like the idea of a salary cap, but I don't like the idea of a central government redistributing the wealth.
I think this is where we get into problems. I think the individual should still retain control of that as much as possible. They should be able to chose were the excess money goes initially.
For example, lets say the cap is $100 year.
And individual makes $500. The individual can choose where his or her $400 goes every year.
Now typically one will give it to family first. Families can be pretty big, when you consider
cousins, and persons married into the family, etc. So at least the one individual is potentially taking care of their own family!
Now the question is, whats the "cap" amount? I had heard a billionaire say once that 20 million is all one would ever need. But, there aren't that many people even in the US making more than 20 million a year. So I think it should be lower to have any real effect. Maybe, and individual can personally pocket 100,000 a year. But what really is important is that the person actually spends his money, not just give it away. Spending money buying goods and services, drives the economy, makes people work. So before this individual puts money into other people's banks accounts that may or may not need it. I say, give the individual a chance to spend their money. So any earnings above 100,000 to 20 million, you are allowed to spend on yourself. This will stimulate the arts, culture, sciences, etc. Areas where people usually need money, but whose effects are very positive in increasing the standard of living for all. Anything above 20 million you will have to disperse to individuals or charities of your choice.
And obviously, such a person doing so much for the economy should not be taxed.
I think this is where we get into problems. I think the individual should still retain control of that as much as possible. They should be able to chose were the excess money goes initially.
For example, lets say the cap is $100 year.
And individual makes $500. The individual can choose where his or her $400 goes every year.
Now typically one will give it to family first. Families can be pretty big, when you consider
cousins, and persons married into the family, etc. So at least the one individual is potentially taking care of their own family!
Now the question is, whats the "cap" amount? I had heard a billionaire say once that 20 million is all one would ever need. But, there aren't that many people even in the US making more than 20 million a year. So I think it should be lower to have any real effect. Maybe, and individual can personally pocket 100,000 a year. But what really is important is that the person actually spends his money, not just give it away. Spending money buying goods and services, drives the economy, makes people work. So before this individual puts money into other people's banks accounts that may or may not need it. I say, give the individual a chance to spend their money. So any earnings above 100,000 to 20 million, you are allowed to spend on yourself. This will stimulate the arts, culture, sciences, etc. Areas where people usually need money, but whose effects are very positive in increasing the standard of living for all. Anything above 20 million you will have to disperse to individuals or charities of your choice.
And obviously, such a person doing so much for the economy should not be taxed.
Capitalism and the "system" works just fine.
People and individuals are allowed to succeed and fail in this system. People make decisions and if you make more good decisions than bad, you succeed. If you make more bad than good...you fail.
As for debt..people incur their own debt. "But college is so expensive!"...well, get good grades in High School...get an academic scholarship (they are not that exclusive), go to a college you can afford, and work and pay your way through...pretty much what my daughter did. And we are not rich...and yes, as a father, I did help.
"But what about mortages or buying a car?" Again, buy what you can afford and build up and onto. That is what people used to do. Look at the older homes from 50 years ago. Ever wonder why they have an addition to an addition with an addition on the back? Ever wonder why your folks or grand parents only had one car and going more than 2 places was a circus as a child? Maybe now we know why a favorite aunt never had a new car, but always had an antique or classic car.
I remember as a child, my father getting into our one bathroom at 4:45am, my mom at 5:15, me at 5:45, and my little brother at 6am. We also ate breakfast in shifts to. We had one TV, one radio, a push mower for about an acre yard...and we were middle class. We went to state parks and museums on vacation as the were either cheap or free...and we camped alot... a few bucks versus a hotel rate. Eat out or stop at McD's?...nope. Lot's of picnics. My mother would actually get up and fry chicken and we'd pack a loaf of bread and tomatoes and a cooler of sodas. She would fix extra bisquits at breakfast and then we would go up to the mountains or the beach or any day trip...eat all we wanted, and have picnics, and see lots of cool stuff... and then come home. No hotel stays for us.
Now a days... with all the conveniences and ease of things, why do all that. Just pay for it. That is the key...just pay for it. We, the 99%, pay the 1%, for the conveniences. We balme them...when in reality... we've only ourselves to blame.
People and individuals are allowed to succeed and fail in this system. People make decisions and if you make more good decisions than bad, you succeed. If you make more bad than good...you fail.
As for debt..people incur their own debt. "But college is so expensive!"...well, get good grades in High School...get an academic scholarship (they are not that exclusive), go to a college you can afford, and work and pay your way through...pretty much what my daughter did. And we are not rich...and yes, as a father, I did help.
"But what about mortages or buying a car?" Again, buy what you can afford and build up and onto. That is what people used to do. Look at the older homes from 50 years ago. Ever wonder why they have an addition to an addition with an addition on the back? Ever wonder why your folks or grand parents only had one car and going more than 2 places was a circus as a child? Maybe now we know why a favorite aunt never had a new car, but always had an antique or classic car.
I remember as a child, my father getting into our one bathroom at 4:45am, my mom at 5:15, me at 5:45, and my little brother at 6am. We also ate breakfast in shifts to. We had one TV, one radio, a push mower for about an acre yard...and we were middle class. We went to state parks and museums on vacation as the were either cheap or free...and we camped alot... a few bucks versus a hotel rate. Eat out or stop at McD's?...nope. Lot's of picnics. My mother would actually get up and fry chicken and we'd pack a loaf of bread and tomatoes and a cooler of sodas. She would fix extra bisquits at breakfast and then we would go up to the mountains or the beach or any day trip...eat all we wanted, and have picnics, and see lots of cool stuff... and then come home. No hotel stays for us.
Now a days... with all the conveniences and ease of things, why do all that. Just pay for it. That is the key...just pay for it. We, the 99%, pay the 1%, for the conveniences. We balme them...when in reality... we've only ourselves to blame.
reply to post by silent thunder
There were plenty of people who believed in nationalism.
They ended up paying for it with their lives.
There were plenty of people who believed in nationalism.
They ended up paying for it with their lives.
reply to post by Sharpenmycleats
You completely misunderstand me. I am against all these regulations being imposed, save for two areas: anti-trust and fraudulent practices. No other regulations should exist on business.
The reason for regulation on fraud is obvious: pure capitalism operates on the principle of "buyer beware". It is very easy, especially where technological items are concerned, to defraud customers and that helps no one except the defrauder. A great example is the law against turning back automobile odometers to make an older car appear new to the hapless shopper.
The reason for anti-trust laws should be just as obvious. Under pure capitalism, it is practically guaranteed that certain companies will grow out of control with a potential customer base of 7 billion. At some point, this unrestrained growth can actually serve to eliminate competition; this is what we are seeing with government/mega-corp collusion preventing start-ups. Left unconstrained, business would actually grow so large as to remove all competition and act as a de facto government. And of course there is the concern of being "too big to fail", which again I read as "too big to exist".
Anti-trust laws have been used in the past to break up huge corporations with great success. The breakup of Ma Bell led to multiple smaller companies engaged in competition with each other, rather than one massive corporation existing without competition. Standard Oil was broken up and the multiple offsprings of this company expanded the infrastructure and petroleum resources to power a developing Industrial Revolution. Capitalism works wonderfully when competition is present, but it does poorly without it. Anti-trust only ensures that competition is allowed,as well as protects the public and the economy from sudden failures of mega-companies which have overgrown their usefulness.
Now, if you believe that is a call for more regulation, whereas the concept proposed at the beginning of this thread (wealth redistribution) is not.... well... I see nothing more to discuss.
TheRedneck
You completely misunderstand me. I am against all these regulations being imposed, save for two areas: anti-trust and fraudulent practices. No other regulations should exist on business.
The reason for regulation on fraud is obvious: pure capitalism operates on the principle of "buyer beware". It is very easy, especially where technological items are concerned, to defraud customers and that helps no one except the defrauder. A great example is the law against turning back automobile odometers to make an older car appear new to the hapless shopper.
The reason for anti-trust laws should be just as obvious. Under pure capitalism, it is practically guaranteed that certain companies will grow out of control with a potential customer base of 7 billion. At some point, this unrestrained growth can actually serve to eliminate competition; this is what we are seeing with government/mega-corp collusion preventing start-ups. Left unconstrained, business would actually grow so large as to remove all competition and act as a de facto government. And of course there is the concern of being "too big to fail", which again I read as "too big to exist".
Anti-trust laws have been used in the past to break up huge corporations with great success. The breakup of Ma Bell led to multiple smaller companies engaged in competition with each other, rather than one massive corporation existing without competition. Standard Oil was broken up and the multiple offsprings of this company expanded the infrastructure and petroleum resources to power a developing Industrial Revolution. Capitalism works wonderfully when competition is present, but it does poorly without it. Anti-trust only ensures that competition is allowed,as well as protects the public and the economy from sudden failures of mega-companies which have overgrown their usefulness.
Now, if you believe that is a call for more regulation, whereas the concept proposed at the beginning of this thread (wealth redistribution) is not.... well... I see nothing more to discuss.
TheRedneck
reply to post by AlreadyGone
Have a star.
We the people have been taught over two generations that we must not wait for the things we want, and now we even have laws specifying that we must not settle for less than the best. When i started life, I drove an old eat-up rattletrap of a car that I had to repair regularly, simply because that was what I could afford. I lived in a small house; many of my friends lived in places that were little more than fancy lean-tos. We ate macaroni-and-cheese most days. That was what we could afford. Insurance was a luxury beyond our means. After working for a little while and saving that money, we began to get nicer cars, better homes, and a few luxuries. Eventually, we had nice homes, new cars, insurance, and good food.
Today, older cars are either unrepairable due to a lack of parts or actually illegal due to emission laws. Houses that once represented an entry level into society are condemned and forced to be destroyed. Insurance is mandated. The result is that people are literally forced to either break the laws or go deeply into debt just to get started on their own. Once in debt, the regular monthly payments, required to have a roof over your head and transportation, keep them in debt... usually for the rest of their life. Did someone mention slavery?
Sears & Roebuck was started by one poor guy who managed to buy a bunch of watches and sell them. WalMart was started by one man who managed to rent a general store. That's the American Dream. That's what made us special. But what would have happened if Mr. Sears had to present proof of insurance for his wagon to drive it, or if he had to buy a new wagon? There would have been no money left for watches to sell. What would have happened if Sam Walton had to pay his employees so much that he couldn't make a profit? There would be no Sears and no WalMart. And there would be no jobs working for Sears or WalMart.
By the same logic, what happens when WalMart can abuse their employees today because they are now "too big to fail"? Employees get abused for "the good of the economy". What happens today when John Doe wants to run his general store? WalMart drops prices so low he can't get any business, then raises them back up after Doe's Grocery closes its doors.
Let John Doe have his shot at success as well. WalMart, to use an example, should be broken up into regional stores and the government needs to step out of John Doe's business just as they kept out of Sam Walton's. The governmental role in the economy is to gently tweak, not to rigidly control.
TheRedneck
Have a star.
We the people have been taught over two generations that we must not wait for the things we want, and now we even have laws specifying that we must not settle for less than the best. When i started life, I drove an old eat-up rattletrap of a car that I had to repair regularly, simply because that was what I could afford. I lived in a small house; many of my friends lived in places that were little more than fancy lean-tos. We ate macaroni-and-cheese most days. That was what we could afford. Insurance was a luxury beyond our means. After working for a little while and saving that money, we began to get nicer cars, better homes, and a few luxuries. Eventually, we had nice homes, new cars, insurance, and good food.
Today, older cars are either unrepairable due to a lack of parts or actually illegal due to emission laws. Houses that once represented an entry level into society are condemned and forced to be destroyed. Insurance is mandated. The result is that people are literally forced to either break the laws or go deeply into debt just to get started on their own. Once in debt, the regular monthly payments, required to have a roof over your head and transportation, keep them in debt... usually for the rest of their life. Did someone mention slavery?
Sears & Roebuck was started by one poor guy who managed to buy a bunch of watches and sell them. WalMart was started by one man who managed to rent a general store. That's the American Dream. That's what made us special. But what would have happened if Mr. Sears had to present proof of insurance for his wagon to drive it, or if he had to buy a new wagon? There would have been no money left for watches to sell. What would have happened if Sam Walton had to pay his employees so much that he couldn't make a profit? There would be no Sears and no WalMart. And there would be no jobs working for Sears or WalMart.
By the same logic, what happens when WalMart can abuse their employees today because they are now "too big to fail"? Employees get abused for "the good of the economy". What happens today when John Doe wants to run his general store? WalMart drops prices so low he can't get any business, then raises them back up after Doe's Grocery closes its doors.
Let John Doe have his shot at success as well. WalMart, to use an example, should be broken up into regional stores and the government needs to step out of John Doe's business just as they kept out of Sam Walton's. The governmental role in the economy is to gently tweak, not to rigidly control.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by Alxandro
.. and here is a video of Bert and Ernie that demonstrates the lunacy of left wing ideology at it's very core.
Forcing someone to share is the same as stealing and at some point those who have can no longer be robbed.
What happens next?
Those who "have not" will start turning on each other, especially on the "once have nots" that invested wisely after the first plunder.
Bottom line, you need the one percent, you want the one percent otherwise it's trickle up poverty for all - (if I may steal a Michael Savagism )
Ummm...there is always a "1%"...even in a "communist" country.
I think the issue is the vast, gaping, chasm between the 1% and the other 99%.
Besides...why is it assumed that "capitalism = meritocracy" and "wealth = hard-work and competance"? Donald Trump inherited his first $300 million...and then has become a professional bankruptcy-filer. Just why in the hell is OK to allow Paris Hilton to be rich, while we pay the people who teach our children Sh*&t?? What have the Kardashians contributed to society? Why do all Rockefeller's get to be born into royalty just because Great-grandpappy John D. Rockefeller busted his ass?
What is the difference between transferring the throne or the barony along bloodlines or transferring billion-dollar corporate empires down bloodlines?? Does one reallyhold any less unearned and undeserved power and influence in society than the other?
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mossme89
Sooo if you're rich.. we take your money and give it to poor people because well .. they have no money.
So me, being in the middle, I'm far, far, far from rich but I'm not "poor" either. Why should I continue to work? Why shouldn't I just chill on my couch playing my xbox smoking pot all day? I mean, I'd get paid either way? Work and have people take my money.. or play xbox and get money with no work?
I see no incentive to work. Certainly no incentive to make a business, create products, innovate.... people will just profit from my work while I make the same as them? F that.. I'll sit on my couch.
You don't see incentive because you are so focused on money you are blinded.
So your idea of a perfect day is smoking pot playing x-box..lol
If that is the case they have stolen your passion and taken your dreams as you work to just exist. Tell me is a dead end job that pays the bills really a life? Do those billionaires and trillionaires deserve millions of times more than your average working Joe NO!
Yet they have cornered every market and massaged every law and there is no way to make it fair short of taking it and thatt is a sad fact.