• 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!

Class Warfare

Its really tragic that they never quite get the point that all they have to do is work their ass of for a while and they can begin creating this for themselves and not ND the wealthy to carry their sorry asses through life. It is AMAZING to me that we can see immigrants...even illegal immigrants...that come here, bust their ass...SUCCEED...and then still have American citizens whining about how unfair life is and how no one can find success anymore.

And with the wealth vandals-it is always just a couple more percentage points-because the "billionaires can afford it". Ultimately, they want no one to make more than they do.

They never understand the concept of value received.
 
And with the wealth vandals-it is always just a couple more percentage points-because the "billionaires can afford it". Ultimately, they want no one to make more than they do.

They never understand the concept of value received.
They are in this instance vilifying Bill Gates for stating "look...I'm cool with you taking 20 billion...but before you seize 100 billion I kind of need to know more about how you are going to use it". I mean...its not like dood isnt already getting massively taxed AND demonstrating personal charity. But because he isnt willing to let leftists seize everything...he's a capitalist pig to them.
 
Here's a good article to read regarding the left wing gibberish on billionaires.
Tomasky and Taxes | National Review
Question: Can Tomasky or anybody else describe the actual mode of “transfer” at work here? In what sense has money been transferred from the middle class to billionaires such as Bill Gates? And who did the transferring?

As is the case with most American billionaires, Gates’s vast fortune has its origin in the launching of a new business. When Microsoft made its initial public offering of stock, it created three billionaires and about 12,000 millionaires. That money came from stock investors, who traded their cash for equity in Microsoft. That was an excellent decision: An investment of $1,000 in Microsoft shares at the IPO would be worth more than $1.6 million today (assuming the reinvestment of dividends, etc.). The American middle class could stand some more victimization of that kind. If that is what getting ripped off looks like, then let’s have some more of the same.

The other way money is “transferred” to Microsoft and its shareholders is in the form of corporate income, which is used to pay both salaries to employees and dividends to shareholders. When it makes a sale, Microsoft gets cash, and consumers get copies of Office or Windows or whatever. If that is what is meant by “transfer,” then “transfer” is just a fancy word for “business.”

True, if it weren't for those evil greedy billionaires, there wouldn't be an American middle class.
 
Why do you label yourself a centrist then?

I guess you don't understand that siding with poor children over billionaires is 'centrist', that Bernie and Warren are moderates who support FDR new deal policies and traditional American values, and that it's our move to massive plutocracy that has corrupted our country, our policies and our language, warping the definition of 'left' and 'right' policies. Now, radical right-wing plutocracy is called 'moderate'?
 
True, if it weren't for those evil greedy billionaires, there wouldn't be an American middle class.

Yes, there would - and a more prosperous middle class. The billionaires would still be doing the 'good' things they do (and likely the bad), and wealthy, but possibly less wealthy. The size of the economic pie would be larger, helping everyone or nearly everyone.
 
Rats never learn. Their answer to poverty is a commie/socialist uprising and more government programs. Feed and exacerbate the problem...never solve the problem.

Its not enough for them that people like Bill Gates has employed millions, made millions and millions for millions. Provided careers and education opportunities for millions. Nor is it glaringly obvious to the rats and the idiot left that the commie socialist policies they invariably run to have provided NONE of those things. No...for the rats its always the same. Blame the productive members of society for their own failings and place the burden for resolving their problems on the productive members of society.

Ever and always the same. And history has proven...this never ends well.

Yes I agree. The "left" thinks the middle class was created by FDR and strong unions. They never once mention innovation or free enterprise.
 
Must Protect Billionaires.

I dare the GOP to run on that slogan. Makes me wonder why they don't. :roll:

No, those comments weren't about protecting billionaires. It's about not always reflexively blaming billionaires for all problems. They didn't steal their billions of dollars from the poor.

Now, it is true that billionaires often get away with unethical practices, and some of them do steal from us through legal loopholes.

But corruption is one thing, and generally hating and blaming the rich is another.
 
No, those comments weren't about protecting billionaires. It's about not always reflexively blaming billionaires for all problems. They didn't steal their billions of dollars from the poor.

Now, it is true that billionaires often get away with unethical practices, and some of them do steal from us through legal loopholes.

But corruption is one thing, and generally hating and blaming the rich is another.
Bold is, simply put, a strawman


From the op:

"Let me get this straight. Millions of kids living in poverty, tens of millions saddled with student debt, perhaps as many as 100 Million are either without health care or in danger of losing everything (including health insurance) if they get sick, but it's Billionaire rights we should be worrying about?"

Note, it's not "billionaires" I am pointing a finger at above.
 
Yes I agree. The "left" thinks the middle class was created by FDR and strong unions. They never once mention innovation or free enterprise.

We agree 'innovation' and some parts of 'free enterprise' play an important role. The phrase 'free enterprise' is too propagandistic and vague to be useful without definition. Parts are useful, parts are harmful. If you're arguing the government can't have rules on product safety or pollution to be 'free enterprise', you are supporting harm. But the middle class WAS largely created by FDR policies on top of that 'innovation'.
 
We agree 'innovation' and some parts of 'free enterprise' play an important role. The phrase 'free enterprise' is too propagandistic and vague to be useful without definition. Parts are useful, parts are harmful. If you're arguing the government can't have rules on product safety or pollution to be 'free enterprise', you are supporting harm. But the middle class WAS largely created by FDR policies on top of that 'innovation'.

TVA, GI bill and public education are the reasons we are a super power. Well...some will say goddidit. Of course.
 
We agree 'innovation' and some parts of 'free enterprise' play an important role. The phrase 'free enterprise' is too propagandistic and vague to be useful without definition. Parts are useful, parts are harmful. If you're arguing the government can't have rules on product safety or pollution to be 'free enterprise', you are supporting harm. But the middle class WAS largely created by FDR policies on top of that 'innovation'.

Why would anyone ever say the government can't have rules? The purpose of the legislative branch is to make rules.

"Free enterprise" does NOT mean lawless chaos.

The middle class was created by FDR "on top of" innovation? That makes no sense. How can you say FDR created the middle class if it was already created by innovation?

And, by the way, the middle class was also created by WWII and the need for workers. Unions only succeeded because there were plenty of jobs. And since then, unions have been failing because of cheap foreign labor and automation.

Socialist engineering doesn't create prosperity or a middle class.
 
Why would anyone ever say the government can't have rules? The purpose of the legislative branch is to make rules.

The plutocrat Republicans want to destroy entire classes of rules that limit profiteers by harming the public.

"Free enterprise" does NOT mean lawless chaos.

What are Republicans pet interests like big tobacco, fossil fuels, wrong wars, climate and environment destruction but 'lawless chaos'?

The middle class was created by FDR "on top of" innovation? That makes no sense. How can you say FDR created the middle class if it was already created by innovation?

It makes perfect sense. Innovation doesn't create a middle class by itself. How the wealth is distributed on top of the creation of wealth decides that.

And, by the way, the middle class was also created by WWII and the need for workers. Unions only succeeded because there were plenty of jobs. And since then, unions have been failing because of cheap foreign labor and automation.

What was WWII but a massive government, socialist project to tax and spend on government employment? I thought that didn't work? And that was for useless production - imagine if it were useful, like housing.

Unions suffer because Republicans have destroyed them with laws mostly. Ask Bernie about the 'free trade' deals that have led to foreign cheap labor harming workers so much, while billionaires profit, as our country skyrockets in debt.

Socialist engineering doesn't create prosperity or a middle class.

Actually what you wrongly call socialist engineering is the only thing that has created a middle class. Republicans create plutocracy.
 
And......Since 1787, the United States Constitution has NOT been irrelevant. That's 100% pure, unadulterated Russia-speak.

LOL, I was actually paraphrasing Dubya, who referred to it as a piece of paper. And of course his legal staff who treated it accordingly.

And of course the US Congress which has passed all manner of unconstitutional legislation like the Orwellian-named Patriot Act, who treat it as irrelevant.

And of course the vast number of US citizens who offer few objections to such legislative efforts, and fully support the results, rationalizing the assault on their rights in many unique ways.

Sorry, Russia-speak has nothing to do with it. Unless like Hillary, one blames all the world's problems on Russia. :lol:
 
LOL, I was actually paraphrasing Dubya, who referred to it as a piece of paper. And of course his legal staff who treated it accordingly.

And of course the US Congress which has passed all manner of unconstitutional legislation like the Orwellian-named Patriot Act, who treat it as irrelevant.

And of course the vast number of US citizens who offer few objections to such legislative efforts, and fully support the results, rationalizing the assault on their rights in many unique ways.

Sorry, Russia-speak has nothing to do with it. Unless like Hillary, one blames all the world's problems on Russia. :lol:

As far as what's been going on for the past three years, yes... we can primarily blame Russia.
 
Let me get this straight. Millions of kids living in poverty, tens of millions saddled with student debt, perhaps as many as 100 Million are either without health care or in danger of losing everything (including health insurance) if they get sick, but it's Billionaire rights we should be worrying about? Really?

Mark Cuban is latest billionaire to complain about Elizabeth Warren'''s wealth tax

Two billionaires explain why they shouldn'''t pay more taxes - Los Angeles Times

Bill Gates complains about paying ‘$100bn’ under Warren’s wealth tax plan | indy100



Sorry, but I'll always side with the poor children and other less fortunate people over billionaires. Must be the atheist in me. :doh

The problem, in my opinion, is that taxing the rich even more, will still not solve simple poverty. No amount of taxing the Rich, can do that.

Only the socialism of equality even under Capitalism, can do that.
 
Right, Christian values let kids starve, die of disease and pay usury when they grow up so that the money changers can live lavishly. :roll:

My point is that Christian values would not let happen what you say. However, Christian politics allow it such that Christians do not practice what Christ preached. White Evangelical Christianity have hijacked morality in the US that allows child poverty rate being the highest in the states with the highest % of Evangelicals. Backing Trump to the hilt of the Christian sword is just one example of that.
 
Let me get this straight. Millions of kids living in poverty, tens of millions saddled with student debt, perhaps as many as 100 Million are either without health care or in danger of losing everything (including health insurance) if they get sick, but it's Billionaire rights we should be worrying about? Really?

Mark Cuban is latest billionaire to complain about Elizabeth Warren'''s wealth tax

Two billionaires explain why they shouldn'''t pay more taxes - Los Angeles Times

Bill Gates complains about paying ‘$100bn’ under Warren’s wealth tax plan | indy100



Sorry, but I'll always side with the poor children and other less fortunate people over billionaires. Must be the atheist in me. :doh

Oh, so this is an either or argument? If one is against the idea of another form of taxation for billionaires then they do not “side with the poor children”?

It is as if, god forbid, someone, anyone, disagree with your view there should be a wealth tax on billionaires. You’ve ignored the possibility people could disagree with your view, resorting to a nifty phrase nobody wants to disagree with of siding “with the children,” as if your view was as right as (4-3=1).

Yet, your argument is oblivious to the need of additional premises to get to the notion of objecting to a wealth tax means “siding” with keeping kids poor and destitute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I guess you don't understand that siding with poor children over billionaires is 'centrist', that Bernie and Warren are moderates who support FDR new deal policies and traditional American values, and that it's our move to massive plutocracy that has corrupted our country, our policies and our language, warping the definition of 'left' and 'right' policies. Now, radical right-wing plutocracy is called 'moderate'?

“Siding with poor children over billionaires”? As unfathomable it may be to you, one can be opposed to the wealth tax of billionaires without also siding with keeping poor children poor and destitute. You ignore the possibility your view isn’t correct, framing the issue from a point of view few people, if any, would disagree with, after all who doesn’t want to side with “poor children”? You treat your phrasing as if it were as right as e=mc squared.

This situation isn’t a zero sum game. How exactly did you arrive to the assumption of a zero sum game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Let me get this straight. Millions of kids living in poverty, tens of millions saddled with student debt, perhaps as many as 100 Million are either without health care or in danger of losing everything (including health insurance) if they get sick, but it's Billionaire rights we should be worrying about? Really?

Mark Cuban is latest billionaire to complain about Elizabeth Warren'''s wealth tax

Two billionaires explain why they shouldn'''t pay more taxes - Los Angeles Times

Bill Gates complains about paying ‘$100bn’ under Warren’s wealth tax plan | indy100



Sorry, but I'll always side with the poor children and other less fortunate people over billionaires. Must be the atheist in me. :doh
Wonderfully over-wrought hand-wringer. :cry:
 
Paying a 2 cent tax on every dollar isn't going to force any millionaire or billionaire into poverty. They will still enjoy a Michelin level dining experience, weekends on their private yachts and the best health care their money can buy. Dick Cheney comes to mind. He got a brand new heart very quickly and I'm sure 'jumped the line' of succession to get one only because of his power and money. But it's those same wealthy people who balk at food subsidies or free lunch programs for children in areas of high poverty.

I can see our country reaching a breaking point at some time in the distant future. It's exactly the same scenario that caused the Russian Revolution in 1917. If Trump gets away with his crimes this time, our Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on. Essentially, he can do whatever he wants to do and nobody can stop him.

See my signature. You two are superb examples of its violation.
 
Paying a 2 cent tax on every dollar isn't going to force any millionaire or billionaire into poverty. They will still enjoy a Michelin level dining experience, weekends on their private yachts and the best health care their money can buy. Dick Cheney comes to mind. He got a brand new heart very quickly and I'm sure 'jumped the line' of succession to get one only because of his power and money. But it's those same wealthy people who balk at food subsidies or free lunch programs for children in areas of high poverty.

I can see our country reaching a breaking point at some time in the distant future. It's exactly the same scenario that caused the Russian Revolution in 1917. If Trump gets away with his crimes this time, our Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on. Essentially, he can do whatever he wants to do and nobody can stop him.

Oh, give me a friggin' break! Do you honestly see our lower classes as equivalent to the starving peasants in pre-revolutionary Russia?
 
Back
Top Bottom