RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed...

RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

xBullx -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 7:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arrogance Yawn Uhh... Nice rant. The point of my post was that we had legislation benefiting the upper crust of the socio-economic ladder at the expense of the middle class. So what's wrong with switching it up, if only for the sake of quid-pro-quo? Legislation always supports those with the gold first, surely you aren't so simple to miss that point. And that being said if you think for one second that those presently making laws are any different than those that came before them you're nuts. They have just been excused to tell their lies........................ for now. Get out and earn your fair share and I have no trouble with anything... Oh and get some sleep you seem a little tired.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 7:14:43 PM)
quote: The point of my post was that we had legislation benefiting the upper crust of the socio-economic ladder at the expense of the middle class. So what's wrong with switching it up, if only for the sake of quid-pro-quo? ORIGINAL: Arrogance The point is, Arrogance, is that the upper 5% has managed not only to buy the government but to get the people who should be outraged looking back at the good old days. What are the good old days? The nineteenth century, time of the robber barons and the company store. The golden age when there was no social security, no unemployment insurance, no medicare or Medicaid, no minimum wage and no pesky child labor laws. It was a time when any organization of labor was handled with guns and management supplied armies. In short, it was the closest thing to pure capitalism that the world has ever seen. There is one quote I will always remember from that time. It came from a robber baron named Jay Gould who said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.". It is the same today. Rather than examining an unsustainable situation, for the death of the middle class has always been the death of a nation, for solutions, we have people shouting that any change is to benefit those who "are too lazy to get off their asses". I call it the "lottery winner scam". The upper 5% (most of who's wealth is inherited wealth) have convinced the average Joe making $50,000.00 a year that he just might win the $500,000,000 lottery....and therefore should fight to make sure that those who make $500,000,000 per year are treated as well as possible. I don't say that a plan to redistriubute the wealth and the political power that goes with it will be easy. But until it is recognized by the majority of people in this country, people who work hard, pay their taxes and are in this country perfectly legally, there will be no chance that this issue can ever be reasonably discussed. Some folks are laughing at that....all the way to the bank.

xBullx -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 7:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: The point of my post was that we had legislation benefiting the upper crust of the socio-economic ladder at the expense of the middle class. So what's wrong with switching it up, if only for the sake of quid-pro-quo? ORIGINAL: Arrogance The point is, Arrogance, is that the upper 5% has managed not only to buy the government but to get the people who should be outraged looking back at the good old days. What are the good old days? The nineteenth century, time of the robber barons and the company store. The golden age when there was no social security, no unemployment insurance, no medicare or Medicaid, no minimum wage and no pesky child labor laws. It was a time when any organization of labor was handled with guns and management supplied armies. In short, it was the closest thing to pure capitalism that the world has ever seen. There is one quote I will always remember from that time. It came from a robber baron named Jay Gould who said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.". It is the same today. Rather than examining an unsustainable situation, for the death of the middle class has always been the death of a nation, for solutions, we have people shouting that any change is to benefit those who "are too lazy to get off their asses". I call it the "lottery winner scam". The upper 5% (most of who's wealth is inherited wealth) have convinced the average Joe making $50,000.00 a year that he just might win the $500,000,000 lottery....and therefore should fight to make sure that those who make $500,000,000 per year are treated as well as possible. I don't say that a plan to redistriubute the wealth and the political power that goes with it will be easy. But until it is recognized by the majority of people in this country, people who work hard, pay their taxes and are in this country perfectly legally, there will be no chance that this issue can ever be reasonably discussed. Some folks are laughing at that....all the way to the bank. I believe that Orion said something to that effect... Term limits, Balanced budget amendments, Limited roles of government, enforcement of monopoly legislation, the list could go on for some time, but you get my drift.

Arrogance -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 7:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: The point of my post was that we had legislation benefiting the upper crust of the socio-economic ladder at the expense of the middle class. So what's wrong with switching it up, if only for the sake of quid-pro-quo? ORIGINAL: Arrogance The point is, Arrogance, is that the upper 5% has managed not only to buy the government but to get the people who should be outraged looking back at the good old days. What are the good old days? The nineteenth century, time of the robber barons and the company store. The golden age when there was no social security, no unemployment insurance, no medicare or Medicaid, no minimum wage and no pesky child labor laws. It was a time when any organization of labor was handled with guns and management supplied armies. In short, it was the closest thing to pure capitalism that the world has ever seen. There is one quote I will always remember from that time. It came from a robber baron named Jay Gould who said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.". It is the same today. Rather than examining an unsustainable situation, for the death of the middle class has always been the death of a nation, for solutions, we have people shouting that any change is to benefit those who "are too lazy to get off their asses". I call it the "lottery winner scam". The upper 5% (most of who's wealth is inherited wealth) have convinced the average Joe making $50,000.00 a year that he just might win the $500,000,000 lottery....and therefore should fight to make sure that those who make $500,000,000 per year are treated as well as possible. I don't say that a plan to redistriubute the wealth and the political power that goes with it will be easy. But until it is recognized by the majority of people in this country, people who work hard, pay their taxes and are in this country perfectly legally, there will be no chance that this issue can ever be reasonably discussed. Some folks are laughing at that....all the way to the bank. I understand and agree with the argument... my quid-pro-quo comment was facetious.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 8:00:05 PM)
quote: I understand and agree with the argument... my quid-pro-quo comment was facetious. ORIGINAL: Arrogance I know, Arrogance, but if I had posted it in reply to (names removed to prevent acrimony) I would get accused of being partisan, calling them racists, being a mindless follower of Obama and not admitting how awful the left was to Bush. You were just safer (and prettier).

rulemylife -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 8:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx (I really like Neil Cavuto, he looks like Eddie Munster) And sounds like Pee Wee Herman quote: But a system where private top end salaries are limited and the reason to work hard to achieve greatness is regulated do they really believe that this will inspire a better tomorrow? How's it working out today? Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia, AIG, etc., etc., etc. Is this the greatness you are referring to? quote: I love the argument that my father was a factory worker and my mother waited tables to raise a family of 6 kids, they never had the nice things. These girls last night asked why anyone needs more than 500,000 thousand dollars a year. And you don't think that is a valid question? Is it healthy for a country to have this kind of income and wealth disparity? Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power The Wealth Distribution In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).

blacksword404 -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 8:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Is it healthy for a country to have this kind of income and wealth disparity? There are two ways(and some combo of the two) to change the equation. And artificially changing either one in not honest. A rich man and poor play a game of chess. The rules for both are the same and benefit neither more than the other. No band of thugs, lawyers or lobbyist to help in any way. You win or lose on your own. The way it should be. The government is supposed to be those rules. But government being what it is, things don't usually happen that way. Somebodies cousin or poker buddy comes in wanting a rule or law changed to something more preferential and off we go. The poor man and rich man use the government to rob each other.

rulemylife -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 9:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 There are two ways(and some combo of the two) to change the equation. And artificially changing either one in not honest. A rich man and poor play a game of chess. The rules for both are the same and benefit neither more than the other. No band of thugs, lawyers or lobbyist to help in any way. You win or lose on your own. The way it should be. The government is supposed to be those rules. But government being what it is, things don't usually happen that way. Somebodies cousin or poker buddy comes in wanting a rule or law changed to something more preferential and off we go. The poor man and rich man use the government to rob each other. I understand your argument, but the reality is the rules are not the same, excluding the influence of government. When you have someone born into wealth pitted against someone born into poverty it is not an equal match.

blacksword404 -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 10:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 There are two ways(and some combo of the two) to change the equation. And artificially changing either one in not honest. A rich man and poor play a game of chess. The rules for both are the same and benefit neither more than the other. No band of thugs, lawyers or lobbyist to help in any way. You win or lose on your own. The way it should be. The government is supposed to be those rules. But government being what it is, things don't usually happen that way. Somebodies cousin or poker buddy comes in wanting a rule or law changed to something more preferential and off we go. The poor man and rich man use the government to rob each other. I understand your argument, but the reality is the rules are not the same, excluding the influence of government. When you have someone born into wealth pitted against someone born into poverty it is not an equal match. Such is life. The situations you grow up in shape you. Meat taste better when you have to bite and claw for it rather than just ring the bell on the silver platter. Although the bell would be much easier.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 11:46:16 PM)
Maybe because the action is wrong no matter which way you run it. Quid pro-quo is not a very good way to try and make just laws. That would be called hypocricy, right? quote: ORIGINAL: Arrogance Yawn Uhh... Nice rant. The point of my post was that we had legislation benefiting the upper crust of the socio-economic ladder at the expense of the middle class. So what's wrong with switching it up, if only for the sake of quid-pro-quo?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/26/2009 11:52:04 PM)
Why should it be an equal match. If you have someone born with an IQ of 160 because of genetics, and someone with an IQ of 110, it is not an equal match. What about someone born with some disabling defect and those that are not? You can provide people tools to better themselves, but you do not lower a bar just so everyone can drink. I am not advocating corporate wealthy people pulling the strings of government, but I do advocate that property should be granted to whoever the original owner wants to give it to. If a wealthy family wants to pass their inheritance down, then great. That means someone worked hard enough in the past to pay for several generations of wealthy progeny. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I understand your argument, but the reality is the rules are not the same, excluding the influence of government. When you have someone born into wealth pitted against someone born into poverty it is not an equal match.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 4:28:34 AM)
quote: rich man and poor play a game of chess. The rules for both are the same and benefit neither more than the other. No band of thugs, lawyers or lobbyist to help in any way. You win or lose on your own. The way it should be. The government is supposed to be those rules. But government being what it is, things don't usually happen that way. Somebodies cousin or poker buddy comes in wanting a rule or law changed to something more preferential and off we go. The poor man and rich man use the government to rob each other. ORIGINAL: blacksword404 The problem with your analogy of the chess game is that it makes this subject a zero sum game. There will be a winner and a loser. That's fine for a game, but not so good for a country. Until we stop trying to run the country like a zero sum game, things are going to continue to deteriorate.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 4:47:38 AM)
quote: Why should it be an equal match. If you have someone born with an IQ of 160 because of genetics, and someone with an IQ of 110, it is not an equal match.ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf That's a good sounding arguement, Orion, but it seems flawed upon examination. In this chess game, the person with the 160 IQ does have a great advantage over the person with the 110 IQ. But both will start out with an equal number of pieces that move in the same way for both sides on a board that offers neither the advantage. Without a level playing field, you can't have anything approaching a even competition. The government is not here to influence the outcome of the game, to extend your analogy. It is here to provide the level playing field.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 4:57:44 AM)
My PC has an IQ of zero but still beats me damnit! (IQ would only be of advantage the first few times you play i.e. how quickly you are able to become aware of the methods and tactics at your disposal compared to an opponent). If you are red or white i.e. not black you have the option to move first hence you can free more of the pieces behind the pawns quicker and build up your lines of pawn reinforcement making progress towards the centre of the board quicker. Having said that being black you get to react to a particular opening.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 6:20:35 AM)
But the government does not, and never has provided a level playing field. Why would they be able to do that now. Also, what do you mean by level playing field? Do you mean that when someone dies, they may not pass on their property to their progeny? Also, that analogy works great, because the poor person is the one with a 160 IQ. That poor person worked his way through school, got his degrees, and the company he has now built, is beating the silver spoon person's company in bidding on state projects. quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: Why should it be an equal match. If you have someone born with an IQ of 160 because of genetics, and someone with an IQ of 110, it is not an equal match.ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf That's a good sounding arguement, Orion, but it seems flawed upon examination. In this chess game, the person with the 160 IQ does have a great advantage over the person with the 110 IQ. But both will start out with an equal number of pieces that move in the same way for both sides on a board that offers neither the advantage. Without a level playing field, you can't have anything approaching a even competition. The government is not here to influence the outcome of the game, to extend your analogy. It is here to provide the level playing field.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 6:57:51 AM)
The chess game is rigged, even without any government interfereance: the poor man has 500 of his friends sitting in the stands, watching every move the rich guy makes. The rich guy has a stack of gold wish allows him to change the game as he sees fit. Neither is stupid. Both know that the game can't go on without the other. The rich guy knows that if he goes to far, the 500 friends will come pouring out of the stands and beat him to death The poor guy knows that if he pushes too hard to just get much more than the basics, the rich guy will pack up his marbles and go play with the even poorer guy sitting a few tables over.

xBullx -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 7:09:05 AM)
Life will never be fair, fair is a relative term and while one party will think a set brand of conditions are fair, someone else will not. I'm for certain amounts of regulation to keep excess greed and power mongers from gaining asset to the point they become a liability or a risk to us all (the greater good). But we have those rules in place, they just aren't applied (properly or at all). It's the legislators we have now and have had for decades, maybe centuries that are the cause and effect of our woes. Perhaps all of us should stop thinking that our individual Reps or Senators are the good guys and really look at them for who they are and what they've done. FFS Mass. has passed legislation (each bill a polar opposite of the other) twice in the past decade to influence the Senator seats for their questionable little state. This wasn't intended to make things fair, but rather to assist one party over another with their agenda. I can't believe that this is just fine and dandy to everyone. Talk about hypocracy in action.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 7:32:31 AM)
quote: But the government does not, and never has provided a level playing field. Why would they be able to do that now. Also, what do you mean by level playing field? Do you mean that when someone dies, they may not pass on their property to their progeny? ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I did not say that, nor do I believe that. I am saying that I see nothing more evil about taxing that inheritance than I do in any other tax. As for chess player with the 160 IQ, it doesn't help him enough if his opponent has been given eight queens to match up with his eight pawns. No one would play a game with such a disadvantage if they had any choice, would they? That some remarkable individuals might be good enough to overcome that disadvantage and win does not mean that that is how the game should be played.

Musicmystery -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 7:45:15 AM)
quote: It's the legislators we have now and have had for decades, maybe centuries that are the cause and effect of our woes. Perhaps all of us should stop thinking that our individual Reps or Senators are the good guys and really look at them for who they are and what they've done. Trouble is--those individuals ARE the good guys. The problem is the power structure in Congress. If you don't follow the leader, you're punished, marginalized. This would have to change before members can effectively act independently. People back home should pay for office/staff space (try to get THAT past the voters!), so it's independent of standing. Committee assignments should rotate, without seniority as the deciding factor. Votes should be secret ballot. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a start--in the states, too (NY could desperately use this). However....the legislators would have to vote to change it, and the power system in place would never allow it.

xBullx -> RE: Hello Michelle, I too am disappointed... (9/27/2009 7:51:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery and the power system in place would never allow it. And therein lies the issue. And my biggest complaint, it's easy enough to see what is wrong, but the present establishment will not create the needed change. It would compromise the chokehold on their illusion of power.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875