billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
DD wisely changes the topic after a close call with introspection.
Look at what you are advocating? Not greater education. Not greater work opportunities. Not job creation. Not encouragement on entrepeneurial spirit.
None of those. You are advocating "Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor." You aren't advocating creation of jobs, but merely increasing the wages of those who actually have them.
You argue not a damned thing about lifting the poor from poverty but only about taking from the wealthy so they have less, too. You don't even discuss how the money from the rich should be used.
It's just "take from the rich because they have it." I'm finding nothing about empowering the poor or uneducated and seeing everything about tearing down those who are doing better in life, regardless of whether they earned it or inherited it.
That's why I'm saying it's all about the money and TAKING money. Not that it will do the poor any good but that it will do the wealthy some bad.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
None of those. You are advocating "Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor." You aren't advocating creation of jobs, but merely increasing the wages of those who actually have them.
You argue not a damned thing about lifting the poor from poverty but only about taking from the wealthy so they have less, too. You don't even discuss how the money from the rich should be used.
It's just "take from the rich because they have it." I'm finding nothing about empowering the poor or uneducated and seeing everything about tearing down those who are doing better in life, regardless of whether they earned it or inherited it.
That's why I'm saying it's all about the money and TAKING money. Not that it will do the poor any good but that it will do the wealthy some bad.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Romney has reduced the great issues of fairness and a just society to the rather boring question of whether people are being fair to him and his friends, and whether they admire his fine qualities. Among other things, this cannot help him electorally: What is less attractive than a manifestly lucky man sulking about how everyone is jealous of him?
Romney claims it's about class warfare.
You claim it's just war on the 1%.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
You claim it's just war on the 1%.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
You say Money - I say Wealth.
QuoteRomney claims it's about class warfare.
You claim it's just war on the 1%.
War by the 1% (just like those nobles of old).
QuoteYou say Money - I say Wealth.
Same thing, isn't it? You list Forbes and it lists peoples' wealth by dollars.
How much do you propose leaving for the wealthy, by the way?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuoteYou say Money - I say Wealth.
Same thing, isn't it? You list Forbes and it lists peoples' wealth by dollars.
How much do you propose leaving for the wealthy, by the way?
Same as for everyone else - as much as they earn.
You will need to define "earn" then.
Good luck, DD.
Matt
Good luck, DD.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
QuoteYou will need to define "earn" then.
Good luck, DD.
Matt
Certainly not if it's inherited.
QuoteQuoteYou will need to define "earn" then.
Good luck, DD.
Matt
Certainly not if it's inherited.
So nobody should recevie anything from inheritance. I take it that includes the 99%? They won't receive anything from when someone dies, right?
And re: "earned." Haven't you mentioned that the 1% only earns off the backs of others? Therefore, they earn nothing?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou will need to define "earn" then.
Good luck, DD.
Matt
Certainly not if it's inherited.
So nobody should recevie anything from inheritance. I take it that includes the 99%? They won't receive anything from when someone dies, right?
They'll receive the benefit of their children not being enslaved by the 1%.
Gilded Age.
Mark Twain coined the phrase to represent his further observation that a society consisting of the sum of its vanity and greed is not a society at all but a state of war. In the event that anybody missed Twain’s meaning, President Grover Cleveland in 1887 set forth the rules of engagement while explaining his veto of a bill offering financial aid to the poor: “The lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.”
Twenty years later, Arthur T. Hadley, the president of Yale, provided an academic gloss: “The fundamental division of powers in the Constitution of the United States is between voters on the one hand and property owners on the other. The forces of democracy on the one side... and the forces of property on the other side.”
Mark Twain coined the phrase to represent his further observation that a society consisting of the sum of its vanity and greed is not a society at all but a state of war. In the event that anybody missed Twain’s meaning, President Grover Cleveland in 1887 set forth the rules of engagement while explaining his veto of a bill offering financial aid to the poor: “The lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.”
Twenty years later, Arthur T. Hadley, the president of Yale, provided an academic gloss: “The fundamental division of powers in the Constitution of the United States is between voters on the one hand and property owners on the other. The forces of democracy on the one side... and the forces of property on the other side.”
billvon 2,991
I would like to be among the first to congratulate you on making a post that does not claim that all the world's problems will be solved by raising the minimum wage.
QuoteI would like to be among the first to congratulate you on making a post that does not claim that all the world's problems will be solved by raising the minimum wage.
That, a National Health Service and a decent tax on unearned inheritance would certainly be a good move.
Mitt's remark that he has "inherited nothing." A variety of commentators have jumped on Romney for that. They've pointed out that Mitt, the son of a wealthy CEO, has enjoyed plenty of privilege — everything from an elite private school education to a rolodex full of rich family friends he could tap to start up his business career. On top of that, the struggling young Mitt had $1 million worth of stock his father threw his way to tide him over until the big paydays started arriving.
Once again you show why there is so little point in attempting a sensible discussion with you.
Irony score: 10/10
This is not a new theme for Romney. In January, after winning the New Hampshire primary, he spoke in his victory speech about “the bitter politics of envy…. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success.” The next morning, he spoke to Matt Lauer:
Lauer: I’m curious about the word ‘envy.’ Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?
Romney: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare.