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?

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

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.

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.

quote:

I understand and agree with the argument... my quid-pro-quo comment was facetious. ORIGINAL: Arrogance

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

(I really like Neil Cavuto, he looks like Eddie Munster)

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?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Is it healthy for a country to have this kind of income and wealth disparity?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
and the power system in place would never allow it.