• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

Really?

Remember, we're not talking about America. We're talking about the world. The theme is that the 1% of the wealthiest will own more than half of the world's wealth, not the US wealth.

Just how is the world economy set up?

like America other place have their banking system that can expand their money supply as needed based on economic demand.
 
typical attitude of a big government statist. Unless you are willing to pay as much taxes as I currently do, your silly rants have no merit or honesty. Your attitude is parasitic and this crap that its ok to tax people who are more productive and industrious than you are to the point that they have a few more bucks than the 47% who suck on the public tit is disgusting

I see you have not addressed the fact that my comment was dishonestly misquoted

It's not what you have. Lots of people are rich. My oldest brother married into a very well to do family, but we don't hear them talking about how much better they have it. It's how you brag about your wealth and accomplishments that is sickening.
 
your wasting your time.

they see it as not fair that you worked saved and invested carried low debt or no debt and worked to be successful to where you got.
all they can see is that you somehow cheated someone else out of their due and that you should be forced to pay simply because you got lucky

it had nothing to do with your skill or knowledge or drive to work it was all luck.

true, modern American liberalism (better known as reactionary parasitic statism) is a never ending attempt to hide butt hurt envy with a facade of "social good" and " economic fairness"
 
It's not what you have. Lots of people are rich. My oldest brother married into a very well to do family, but we don't hear them talking about how much better they have it. It's how you brag about your wealth and accomplishments that is sickening.

That, and the fact that some people believe that there inheritance is an "accomplishment", as if they did something to earn it.
 
It's not what you have. Lots of people are rich. My oldest brother married into a very well to do family, but we don't hear them talking about how much better they have it. It's how you brag about your wealth and accomplishments that is sickening.

ah Poor thing. I am sorry the some place, some where I posted something that accentuated your feelings of envy. Its a piss poor argument to support confiscatory statist policies because someone made you feel bad about your own failings
 
That, and the fact that some people believe that there inheritance is an "accomplishment", as if they did something to earn it.

who has ever said that-what is funny is watching the envious complain that someone-- who inherited money because the person who earned it exercised his or her right to bequeath the wealth he or she earned-- is less entitled to that wealth than the pimps in government who want to pander to the butt hurt envy of a bunch of failures
 
ah Poor thing. I am sorry the some place, some where I posted something that accentuated your feelings of envy. Its a piss poor argument to support confiscatory statist policies because someone made you feel bad about your own failings

Why do you feel the need to continually mention your accomplishments? Do you suffer from an inferiority complex? Do you need to feel superior?
 
Why do you feel the need to continually mention your accomplishments? Do you suffer from an inferiority complex? Do you need to feel superior?

Constantly is a bit hyperbolic but it fun watching a few whine and caterwaul

and when people who are net tax consumers constantly whine about the rich and bleat that the rich should pay more and more, I have a right to counter that crap.
 
like America other place have their banking system that can expand their money supply as needed based on economic demand.
So, quantitative easing, is that what you're referring to? Is that what the real difference is between those places you mention where people are generally either very wealthy or very poor?
 
Constantly is a bit hyperbolic but it fun watching a few whine and caterwaul

and when people who are net tax consumers constantly whine about the rich and bleat that the rich should pay more and more, I have a right to counter that crap.

Yes you are free to be as obnoxious as you desire.
 
OK. You're convinced that Obama engaged in crony capitalism and no amount of explanation to the contrary is going to change your mind so I leave you to your opinion on that. But...... gotta say.... if a little odd to argue that it was necessary AND it was crony capitalism. Crony capitalism, by it's very "meme" indicates that it wasn't necessary but gratuitous. But nevermind. I've got work to do.

Of course they all did - Bush II, Obama, Congress, both parties. It's in the historical record, so not really an "opinion" - just what happened. Every history written of the era will accept this as self evident. So you're right - no amount of "explanation" that is contradicted by the record will convince me.

And crony capitalism just means success or failure depends on relationships with government, with government picking winners and losers. That clearly was the case during the crisis - as you said, 100s of smaller banks were allowed to fail, some huge financial institutions were allowed to fail, but we spent/loaned/guaranteed $TRILLIONS to save some of the biggest players.
 
Constantly is a bit hyperbolic but it fun watching a few whine and caterwaul

and when people who are net tax consumers constantly whine about the rich and bleat that the rich should pay more and more, I have a right to counter that crap.

No you don't. The first amendment is only for liberals. Any attempt to refute their silly-assed drivel has them swarming to shout you down.
 
That, and the fact that some people believe that there inheritance is an "accomplishment", as if they did something to earn it.

80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.
 
So, quantitative easing, is that what you're referring to? Is that what the real difference is between those places you mention where people are generally either very wealthy or very poor?

do you not understand how the federal reserve works? they control the money supply in the system. as the system needs more money or the economy expands. they add that money into the system.

hence no 1 group of people can own it all. it simply isn't possible.
 
Of course they all did - Bush II, Obama, Congress, both parties. It's in the historical record, so not really an "opinion" - just what happened. Every history written of the era will accept this as self evident. So you're right - no amount of "explanation" that is contradicted by the record will convince me.

And crony capitalism just means success or failure depends on relationships with government, with government picking winners and losers. That clearly was the case during the crisis - as you said, 100s of smaller banks were allowed to fail, some huge financial institutions were allowed to fail, but we spent/loaned/guaranteed $TRILLIONS to save some of the biggest players.

Like I said. You can't argue assert that the bailouts were necessary and then assert that it was crony capitalism, too. One or the other. If your motive is to save yourself, then saying it was really because you were doing someone else a favor is just dishonest. But I see there's no reasoning with you so go ahead and get your requisite last word in, whatever it may be. Cheers.
 
No you don't. The first amendment is only for liberals. Any attempt to refute their silly-assed drivel has them swarming to shout you down.

Non sequitur alert!!!
 
J-mac, it's useless talking to you because you just make up **** that other people say. Every post is a giant straw man.

Learn how to debate. It's annoying. And I never said "try it".
Your President sure did.
 
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.

Still trying to use reason in this discussion, are you? Well, good luck with that, LOL. ;)
 
Non sequitur alert!!!

Now that is an awesome example of irony right there.

irony.jpg
 
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.

don't deploy facts, you want them to be able to wallow the the pool of envy trying to convince themselves that the game is rigged against them
 
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.

So what? I didn't say anything about 80% of millionaires.

I am still befuddled by those who believe that inheritance is a merit based accomplishment.
 
Like I said. You can't argue assert that the bailouts were necessary and then assert that it was crony capitalism, too. One or the other. If your motive is to save yourself, then saying it was really because you were doing someone else a favor is just dishonest. But I see there's no reasoning with you so go ahead and get your requisite last word in, whatever it may be. Cheers.

Ok, maybe there's another term you prefer that describes the government funneling $trillions into an industry to bail it out, and in the process picking those entities that will survive and those that will not. I'm fine with that - just let me know what term that is.
 
So what? I didn't say anything about 80% of millionaires.

I am still befuddled by those who believe that inheritance is a merit based accomplishment.

that's a strawman argument. the argument that you ignore is that the person who made the wealth is in a better position to decide who gets it than a bunch of pimps in office who pander to the envious butt hurts who are upset they didn't have prosperous parents
 
Now that is an awesome example of irony right there.

You realize I guess that the First Amendment exists in part to PROTECT liberals' right to "shout you down" in a debate (to the extent that can even occur in a written debate forum).

Maybe I should have said, "Missing the entire point of the First Amendment Alert!!"
 
Still trying to use reason in this discussion, are you? Well, good luck with that, LOL. ;)

yea I know who needs reason and logic when EMO ranting is so much better.
 
Back
Top Bottom