Socialism And Righting A Wrong.

[proud PETA member]

IBdaMann has never spelled anything out crystal clearly on this forum since I have been here.

I am sorry you have such a reading comprehension problem. It must be very frustrating for you. Is this the disability you will claim gives you the right to IBdaMannn's money?

There is another option. You could get some additional reading comprehension education. This is what's called a marketable skill and actually makes you worth more money in the job market. Really cool how capitalism works.

Has he? Where is that?

Without defining wealthy, and only using words like fairness and equality, there are certainly some gray areas in his proposal.

I have endorsed his perspective...but I would not endorse that.

Will you define "wealthy"? Will you define "too much"?

So...either put up...or STFU.

Define your terms or STFU.

I am not. (Motivated by money)

You are either lying or never produced anything of value. Which is it?

Yup...free enterprise is a necessity for an economy to succeed. And the people who "innovate" should reap extra rewards.

...but not ALL the rewards. They should have 90% of those innovation rewards confiscated and given to those who do not innovate , take risks, produce, and succeed, often at great cost. Did I get that right?

But that should not necessitate some people being unable to get reasonable healthcare or reasonable education or to have a reasonable life.

Who gets to decide what is reasonable? You? No thanks. I suspect my opinion would be that your life sucks and I don't want it. I'll make my own healthcare and life decisions, but I do appreciate your willingness to help me out using other people's money.

Sounds like some serious projection going on with you.

OK, you may have me there. Can we agree that without the motivation of money, there would be far less advancements in technology and the S&P might actually be below 5k?

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am sorry you have such a reading comprehension problem. It must be very frustrating for you. Is this the disability you will claim gives you the right to IBdaMannn's money?

I have no reading comprehension problem...and in fact was able, when a computer was not the only requirement for expressing a public opinion, able to express opinions in the New York Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine...plus the op ed pages of newspapers across America.

I have never expressed any right to that asshole's money. Are you going to invent things often in our conversations?

There is another option. You could get some additional reading comprehension education.

Please see above.

This is what's called a marketable skill and actually makes you worth more money in the job market. Really cool how capitalism works.

I am not a money motivated individual. And I have a very marketable skill.

Without defining wealthy, and only using words like fairness and equality, there are certainly some gray areas in his proposal.

Indeed. We agree there.

Will you define "wealthy"?

I will gladly define it where I have used it. Please quote where you want me to define it. QUOTE IT..with a link.

Will you define "too much"?

I cannot imagine I ever used "too much" with regard to wealth...but I have with wealth disparity. If you quote where I used it (with a link) I will gladly define what I meant in that use.

Define your terms or STFU.

Gladly...and appropriately. Even for someone like you.

You are either lying or never produced anything of value. Which is it?

Gimme a fucking break, Asswipe. I am not lying. I simply am not money motivated. In any case, I love writing and offering opinions...and have produced enough quality work to have been selected by editors to have those opinions published back when there was more to attaining that than owning a computer.

...but not ALL the rewards.

Definitely not ALL the rewards in the context of what I was writing.

Are you saying that you would be okay with one (or ten) individuals accumulating ALL the wealth of the nation? Are saying you would still consider our nation to be a healthy one if that were to happen?

They should have 90% of those innovation rewards confiscated and given to those who do not innovate , take risks, produce, and succeed, often at great cost. Did I get that right?

So far you haven't gotten anything right...unless you mean "right wing" or fascist.

I have suggested, strongly, that the wealth disparity of the top 1% of the population owning 33% of the total wealth...and the top 10% of the population owning over 60% of the total wealth...and the bottom 50% owning just 2.5% of the total wealth...with the disparity CONSTANTLY increasing...has the makings of something very nasty.

If you disagree with that...fine with me. I enjoy speaking with people who disagree with me. It helps me hone my arguments.

Who gets to decide what is reasonable?

Well...history has shown that the general public usually does. Happened in Russia during the early 20th century...in France during the late 18th century. Don't want to see it happen here.

You? No thanks.

Another area where we agree. I do not want it to be me...or you.

I suspect my opinion would be that your life sucks and I don't want it.

I often say that I am the luckiest person alive. My life has been wonderful and fulfilling. Been some bad moments, but I guess that happens to everyone. But I have been very, very lucky overall. I am now 89 years old...play golf 3 - 4 times a week...and enjoy more often than feel frustrated by what happens in my life. (Perhaps except for the Nassau I lost today to my friend Bill)

I'll make my own healthcare and life decisions, but I do appreciate your willingness to help me out using other people's money.

Fuck you. I have not offered to help you out using other people's money.

Why is it necessary for you to make shit up? Are you unable to deal with what I have actually written...or do YOU have that reading comprehension problem of which you spoke?

OK, you may have me there. Can we agree that without the motivation of money, there would be far less advancements in technology and the S&P might actually be below 5k?

We can certainly agree that without the motivation of money...there might well be far less advancements in technology. I am a capitalist...first and foremost...and I have actually worked on Wall Street. Without free enterprise, most often motivated by the desire for more money...nothing works. Socialism has that deficiency...which it seems it is trying to correct by borrowing from capitalism.

Now...a question for you.

Predicate: You seem to be in disagreement with my contention that the current wealth disparity (which is increasing) may lead to serious problems as it grows...and is more a negative for a nation than a positive.

Question based on that predicate (which may be incorrect):

At what point do you think you would consider the disparity to be so serious a negative that steps would have to be taken to correct its trajectory. Surely you would think that if one person owned 99% of the nation's wealth. Right now 1% of the population owns 1/3 of the nation's wealth...meaning approximately 3,400,000 people own 33% of our wealth...leaving approximately 336,000,000 of our people sharing just 2 1/2 % of the wealth.

Where would it become critical for you...where would you see there is a problem?

 

[Highlight]

I think your proposal has some merit. I started another thread just now on the problems of communism, which I think we can all agree has problems. That thread can be seen here:

Thread 'Aristotle and the Community of Property | Antoine Dresse'

Yesterday at 9:23 AM

Just finished reading the article from which the name of this thread was copied, and thought it was quite good. I notice that another thread was started here recently by Highlight that talks of the problems of wealth disparity and I agree. It can be seen here:

This thread comes from the other side of the debate, talking of the dangers of communism. By now, I think many already know quite a few, having seen the rise and fall of the U.S.S.R., but the communist regimes that are still with us today have adapted...

• Scott
• antoine dresse aristotle arktos capitalism communism generosity property socrates
• Replies: 0
• Forum: General Politics Forum

I suspect that while your proposal to just take 56 trillion in wealth from the top 50% may well be good in principle, the devil is in the details. I think a better way to start would be focus not so much on the top 50%, but on the top 10%. According to a chart from Statista, the top 10% own 53.4% of the wealth in the U.S., those in the 50-90% bracket own 30.3% of the wealth and the bottom 50% just own 2.5%. If we assume that total U.S. wealth is 160 trillion as you stated, that works out, as 4 trillion is indeed 2.5% of 160 trillion. The chart actually has 2 categories for the top 10%- the 90-99%, which owns 36.4%, and the top 1%, which owns 17% of all U.S. wealth. The chart can be seen here:

Wealth distribution U.S. 2025| Statista

In the first quarter of 2025, almost two-thirds percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners.

www.statista.com

I seem to remember saying somewhere that the more money the wealthy have, the more we take. It isn't my intention to bankrupt the wealthy. Just make things more equitable. The wealthy have been able to buy politicians. The wealth disparity shows that.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think a better way to start would be focus not so much on the top 50%, but on the top 10%.

Nope. You need to start with explaining why you or your agents should be allowed to steal wealth from those who have earned it.

Start there. Explain why you should have theft-supremacy.

 

[Scott]

Nope. You need to start with explaining why you or your agents should be allowed to steal wealth from those who have earned it.

I think that, especially for the ultra rich, it'd be more of taking from people who are in essence legal thiefs. Some articles that I think touch upon this:

What Is Political Corruption and What Can We Do About It?

It hurts ordinary Americans in concrete ways, and the risk has never been greater given today’s unprecedented mixing of private wealth with political power.

www.brennancenter.org

How the Supreme Court Favors the Rich and Powerful

Over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the rich and powerful more often than not.

time.com

Oligarchy in the open: What happens now as the U.S. is forced to confront its plutocracy problem?

Professors Archon Fung of Harvard Kennedy School and Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School say Trump’s brazen embrace of billionaire ruling partners could be an inflection point in America’s long slide toward rule by the wealthiest.

www.hks.harvard.edu

 

[IBDaMann]

I have no reading comprehension problem.

@proud PETA member, Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) has a definite "selective" comprehension problem. He is also totally dishonest. Just assume that whatever he posts is FALSE. Using that as your operating assumption will help you respond with great clarity.

..and in fact was able, when a computer was not the only requirement for expressing a public opinion, able to express opinions in the New York Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine.

Assume that @Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) has never been able to honestly and clearly express any sort of concept.

I am not a money motivated individual.

@proud PETA member, of course Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) is lying through his teeth. It's all he knows how to do.

And I have a very marketable skill.

@proud PETA member, you can safely assume that Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) is useless and without any marketable skill. When people notice that he's a total loser, he replies "Hey, I'm just not a money-motivated individual." Then he proceeds to explain how he has a "very marketable skill" that he just prefers not to use.

I will gladly define it where I have used it.

@proud PETA member, Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) could have simply defined it right there for you. I think you're getting the picture as to why he is being EVASIVE. Don't worry, however, he will blame you for his dishonesty. Just watch.

Please quote where you want me to define it. QUOTE IT..with a link.

@proud PETA member, is Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) planning on conveniently altering the definition between usage? Is that why he can't just define it for you now and stick with that definition, and instead he needs you to point out each individual usage of the term in order to tell you how he is defining it in that particular case?

I cannot imagine I ever used "too much" with regard to wealth..

@proud PETA member, don't be distracted by his pivot to his imagination's shortcomings. He could have explained to you what he meant, but didn't, probably because this too will be a free-floating definition.

.but I have with wealth disparity.

... and this makes all the difference in the world. I'm so glad this was clarified because we certainly wouldn't want Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) to be unnecessarily clear anywhere clarity can be EVADED.

If you quote where I used it (with a link) I will gladly define what I meant in that use.

@proud PETA member, yup, it looks like we have a free-floating definition on our hands.

Gimme a fucking break, Asswipe.

Oooooh, @proud PETA member, what were you thinking, hitting close to home like that?

I am not lying. I simply am not money motivated.

@proud PETA member, is someone doubling down on why he is a loser?

In any case, I love writing and offering opinions..

@proud PETA member, it's the considering of differing opinions that Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) doesn't love so much.

.and have produced enough quality work to have been selected by editors to have those opinions published

@proud PETA member, you can assume that Ross Dolan was paid a few dollars for "filler" articles during the slow weeks.

Are you saying that you would be okay with one (or ten) individuals accumulating ALL the wealth of the nation? Are saying you would still consider our nation to be a healthy one if that were to happen?

@proud PETA member, I would consider it a personal favor if you could get Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) to explain why it should be illegal for society's top-10 value-adders and happiness providers to continue adding value and providing happiness at their current levels.

@proud PETA member, don't let anyone know, but keep in your back pocket this little tidbit: antitrust laws will break up any business(es) that develop(s) any sort of monolpoly. The fear Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) is peddling has already been long-since addressed.

So far you haven't gotten anything right...unless you mean "right wing" or fascist.

@proud PETA member , of course Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) is economics-challenged and politically ignorant. If he could get something correct, he'd lie about it anyway.

I have suggested, strongly, that the wealth disparity of the top 1% of the population owning 33% of the total wealth

@proud PETA member , just as warmizombies talk about Climate Change being a "threat" that they never define, Marxists all discuss "wealth disparity" as a "threat" that they never define. I'm sure that you and I have differing amounts of wealth. Would you please find out from Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) what threat that represents? I'm sure both of us would like to know, so that I can properly accuse you of representing an existential threat to democracy.

...and the top 10% of the population owning over 60% of the total wealth.

@proud PETA member , Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) has a point here. The last three times the earth was vaporized by human activity was specifically due to the top 10% of the population owning over 60% of the total wealth. Given your wealth disparity, you were probably at fault as well.

.and the bottom 50% owning just 2.5% of the total wealth.

@proud PETA member, why do we even allow them to own 2.5% anyway?

..with the disparity CONSTANTLY increasing...has the makings of something very nasty.

@proud PETA member , doesn't this sound identical to Climate Change? @Phantasmal , isn't this essentially what you are peddling?

"With the wealth dithparity acthelerating at an unprethedented rate, the Earth's global financial climate is exthperienthing catathtrophic wealth polluthion beyond anything thientiththth previouthly feared. If we don't act now by leveeing fweth new layerth of heavy takthathion, earth'thth global economy might be puthed to the tipping point ... but it might already be too late. "

Whether the Marxist is screaming Climate Change or Wealth Disparity, this is as coherent an explanation you'll ever get.

I enjoy speaking with people who disagree with me. It helps me hone my arguments.

@proud PETA member , Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) never hones anything. He simply chants the same crap without ever learning anything.

Well...history has shown that the general public usually does.

Nope. Hisotry has shown that the tyrannical oligarchy the public follows ... get to make all those determinations. The supporting public gets no say in the matter.

Another area where we agree. I do not want it to be me...or you.

@proud PETA member , Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) is lying. It can't be you because he needs it to be him. Of course he can't admit this; that would be honest, and we can't have honesty now, can we?

Fuck you. I have not offered to help you out using other people's money.

@proud PETA member , yeah, fuck you for pointing out how Ross Dolan (aka Frank Apisa) wants to help himself to other people's money while insiuating that you were assumed to be in on that. You're not. Only those of the correct political hive-mind will be offered help during the redistribution of other people's money.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think that, especially for the ultra rich, it'd be more of taking from people who are in essence legal thiefs.

Nope. Unless they have been convicted of theft by a jury of their peers, you do not get to claim that they are somehow your victimizers, and that you are such a victim who is in need of theft supremacy.

So, why should you be given theft supremacy, i.e. the power to steal wealth from those who rightfully earned it. Are you advocating for the abolition of theft laws? You have a great deal of clarifying to do.

 

[Scott]

Nope. Unless they have been convicted of theft by a jury of their peers, you do not get to claim that they are somehow your victimizers,

I see that you cut off the articles that make it clear that the law has been twisted when it comes to the super wealthy. You may not want to read them, but for the audience, here they are:

What Is Political Corruption and What Can We Do About It?

It hurts ordinary Americans in concrete ways, and the risk has never been greater given today’s unprecedented mixing of private wealth with political power.

www.brennancenter.org

How the Supreme Court Favors the Rich and Powerful

Over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the rich and powerful more often than not.

time.com

Oligarchy in the open: What happens now as the U.S. is forced to confront its plutocracy problem?

Professors Archon Fung of Harvard Kennedy School and Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School say Trump’s brazen embrace of billionaire ruling partners could be an inflection point in America’s long slide toward rule by the wealthiest.

www.hks.harvard.edu

 

[IBDaMann]

I see that you cut off the articles that make it clear that the law has been twisted when it comes to the super wealthy.

No laws have been twisted and your non-authoritative sources are simply a waste of bandwidth.

So, why should you be given theft-supremacy? Why should you be considered such a VICTIM! by people who have added great value to society and who have brought much happiness to the world? Why should you be allowed to steal wealth from those who have rightfully earned it?

Please stay on topic and answer the questions.

 

[Nordberg]

What parody or satire site did this come from?

Math.

 

[cawacko]

Math.

I’ll bite, please do share.

 

[EdwinA]

You didn't define "wealthy." Reagan gave tax breaks to everyone who pays taxes, as did Trump. What do you have against tax breaks?

A big lie. He did no such thing. He increased taxes on the lowest brackets, and went after waitresses for having to live on tips, something he apparently wanted to punish them for, even though they were subjected to much lower minimum wages than regular workers were.

Reagan was an asshole, not a 'conservative hero'. Get over it already. All hat and no cattle. Loved him some illegal aliens. too.

 

[Hawkeye10]

A big lie. He did no such thing. He increased taxes on the lowest brackets, and went after waitresses for having to live on tips, something he apparently wanted to punish them for, even though they were subjected to much lower minimum wages than regular workers were.

Reagan was an asshole, not a 'conservative hero'. Get over it already. All hat and no cattle. Loved him some illegal aliens. too.

He went after hospitality workers who lie about their tips...which is very common.

 

[Scott]

I see that you cut off the articles that make it clear that the law has been twisted when it comes to the super wealthy.

No laws have been twisted

Yes, they have. I see that you've once again snipped off the 3 articles I keep on bringing up. I suspect you might never click on them yourself even though the information they contain is quite relevant to our discussion. So I'll quote from the first of the 3 articles below:
**
Rising political corruption highlights the need for structural reforms to strengthen federal institutions and rein in conduct that harms American citizens. Harmful Supreme Court decisions, erosion of norms, and public officials’ increasing brazenness have created this moment. But the public and Congress can take immediate steps to curtail political corruption and, in the longer term, push for more fundamental reforms to return democratic power to the American people.

The Abuse of Public Office for Private Gain​

The word “corruption” is regularly used to describe politicians’ conduct but seldom defined. In political discourse, the word is sometimes used broadly to refer to anything that seems dysfunctional or otherwise harmful to the public interest. At the same time, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the legal definition of corruption, curbing the reach of criminal anticorruption laws and limiting policymakers’ ability to regulate the role of money in politics.

Despite its frequent and varied use, the term “political corruption” has a widely accepted definition: the abuse of public office for private gain. Importantly, while “private gain” includes not just economic benefits like money and material goods but also other unfair advantages, this analysis focuses primarily on examples of financial self-enrichment.

Political Corruption Harms Ordinary People​

When government officials make decisions motivated by money or other forms of undue private gain, it warps policy and hurts the public. Things like public education, healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety lose out as public funds get misdirected and the quality of government services decreases.

The United States has seen corruption and its results many times in its history. During the late-19th century’s Gilded Age, for example, politicians routinely took bribes from corporations in deals that ultimately allowed those with the most wealth — robber barons and industrial conglomerates — to avoid regulation and gobble up public resources on favorable terms. Meanwhile, workers often faced long hours, dangerous jobs, and meager wages with few legal protections. Overcrowded housing, poor sanitation, and contaminated food were common.

Corruption has also played a major role in various financial crises. The lack of regulation bought by Gilded Age tycoons facilitated fraud and speculation, which led to stock market and banking crashes that cost people their life savings.

A century later, deregulation driven by the banking industry and the politicians it supported produced the 1980s savings and loan crisis, a banking collapse that cost taxpayers over $130 billion. But even after that scandal, Congress and regulators succumbed to pressure from the banking industry’s lobbying and campaign contributions to repeal laws designed to ensure market stability, prevent regulation of risky new financial products, and weaken watchdog agencies. These efforts paved the way to the subprime mortgage crisis, which sparked the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
**

Source:

What Is Political Corruption and What Can We Do About It?

It hurts ordinary Americans in concrete ways, and the risk has never been greater given today’s unprecedented mixing of private wealth with political power.

www.brennancenter.org

I'll stop there for now. There's a great documentary on the subprime mortgage crisis that I think anyone who'd like to see the extent of the problem when it comes to big money should watch. The trailer can be seen here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBZfsb7OO_k


There are documentaries that focus on the problem of our money creation as well. The one below is the best one I know for an introduction to the problem as well as potential solutions:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes, they have. I see that you've once again snipped off the 3 articles I keep on bringing up. I suspect you might never click on them yourself even though the information they contain is quite relevant to our discussion. So I'll quote from the first of the 3 articles below:
**
Rising political corruption highlights the need for structural reforms to strengthen federal institutions and rein in conduct that harms American citizens. Harmful Supreme Court decisions, erosion of norms, and public officials’ increasing brazenness have created this moment. But the public and Congress can take immediate steps to curtail political corruption and, in the longer term, push for more fundamental reforms to return democratic power to the American people.

The Abuse of Public Office for Private Gain​

The word “corruption” is regularly used to describe politicians’ conduct but seldom defined. In political discourse, the word is sometimes used broadly to refer to anything that seems dysfunctional or otherwise harmful to the public interest. At the same time, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the legal definition of corruption, curbing the reach of criminal anticorruption laws and limiting policymakers’ ability to regulate the role of money in politics.

Despite its frequent and varied use, the term “political corruption” has a widely accepted definition: the abuse of public office for private gain. Importantly, while “private gain” includes not just economic benefits like money and material goods but also other unfair advantages, this analysis focuses primarily on examples of financial self-enrichment.

Political Corruption Harms Ordinary People​

When government officials make decisions motivated by money or other forms of undue private gain, it warps policy and hurts the public. Things like public education, healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety lose out as public funds get misdirected and the quality of government services decreases.

The United States has seen corruption and its results many times in its history. During the late-19th century’s Gilded Age, for example, politicians routinely took bribes from corporations in deals that ultimately allowed those with the most wealth — robber barons and industrial conglomerates — to avoid regulation and gobble up public resources on favorable terms. Meanwhile, workers often faced long hours, dangerous jobs, and meager wages with few legal protections. Overcrowded housing, poor sanitation, and contaminated food were common.

Corruption has also played a major role in various financial crises. The lack of regulation bought by Gilded Age tycoons facilitated fraud and speculation, which led to stock market and banking crashes that cost people their life savings.

A century later, deregulation driven by the banking industry and the politicians it supported produced the 1980s savings and loan crisis, a banking collapse that cost taxpayers over $130 billion. But even after that scandal, Congress and regulators succumbed to pressure from the banking industry’s lobbying and campaign contributions to repeal laws designed to ensure market stability, prevent regulation of risky new financial products, and weaken watchdog agencies. These efforts paved the way to the subprime mortgage crisis, which sparked the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
**

Source:

What Is Political Corruption and What Can We Do About It?

It hurts ordinary Americans in concrete ways, and the risk has never been greater given today’s unprecedented mixing of private wealth with political power.

www.brennancenter.org

I'll stop there for now. There's a great documentary on the subprime mortgage crisis that I think anyone who'd like to see the extent of the problem when it comes to big money should watch. The trailer can be seen here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBZfsb7OO_k


There are documentaries that focus on the problem of our money creation as well. The one below is the best one I know for an introduction to the problem as well as potential solutions:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA

I admire your stamina.

 

[EdwinA]

He went after hospitality workers who lie about their tips...which is very common.

No, he went after all of them, dumbass, which is common with right wingers who hate getting prosecuted for fraud and hate paying taxes on their stolen gains. He raised taxes on the lower brackets 8 times, while focusing on his drug smuggling and running guns to terrorists. Anybody who can read can see the tax tables for themselves, so only morons will claim otherwise .