The American Way.

[LV426]

Liberalism is all about soaking the rich into oblivion. Who'll be around to run businesses if there is nobody there to take the risk?

Pretty sure that there were still rich people when the tax rate was 90% through the 50's.

Pretty sure there were rich people when the tax rate was 70% through the 60's and 70's.

Pretty sure there were rich people when the tax rate was raised to 39.6% in the 90's.

Would love to see evidence that there weren't.

 

[cawacko]

What did I lie about?

Nothing.

You, on the other hand, lie about everything. And you lie by omission, which is the most insidious of all the lies because it means you know that the point you're making is bullshit, but you do so anyway in the hopes that people will accept what you say at face value and/or that they're as fucking lazy as you.

Nope. You have lied from day one about the pension shortage and then lied about me and the positions I hold. In fact you repeatedly lie. Like I said it's an attempted bully approach because frankly you're an a*hole.

 

[LV426]

You have lied about quite a bit actually. Not only that you're an angry person and try to bully people. Bad qualities all around.

I haven't lied about everything, but you have omitted plenty in debates here.

You post links blindly, then refuse to speak to the links you post.

So you're just posting them to provoke and incite. You don't actually contribute anything.

 

[Boris The Animal]

In fact, more than a third of the Forbes 400 inherited the businesses that generated their wealth. These modern wealth dynasties exercise significant economic power in our current gilded age of extreme inequality.

A new report I co-authored with my colleague Chuck Collins at the Institute for Policy Studies, Billionaire Bonanza 2018, looks at the rise of these wealth dynasties. The Forbes 400 combined own $2.89 trillion, we found. That’s more than the combined wealth of the bottom 64 percent of the United States.

The median family in the United States owns just over $80,000 in household wealth. The richest person in the United States (and the world), Jeff Bezos, has accumulated a fortune nearly 2 million times that amount.

https://wakeup-world.com/2018/12/06/how-aristocracies-are-born/

So? Who cares. I don't

 

[kudzu]

Are you saying it's the American way for those that make an effort and benefit from improving themselves to be forced to enable freeloaders unwilling to do either?

None of the living members of these families founded the companies from which their fortunes come — all were started by earlier generations. In fact, more than a third of the Forbes 400 inherited the businesses that generated their wealth. These modern wealth dynasties exercise significant economic power in our current gilded age of extreme inequality.

A new report I co-authored with my colleague Chuck Collins at the Institute for Policy Studies, Billionaire Bonanza 2018, looks at the rise of these wealth dynasties. The Forbes 400 combined own $2.89 trillion, we found. That’s more than the combined wealth of the bottom 64 percent of the United States.

The median family in the United States owns just over $80,000 in household wealth. The richest person in the United States (and the world), Jeff Bezos, has accumulated a fortune nearly 2 million times that amount.

These pictures paint a grim picture of wealth inequality in the United States in 2018. Wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands while the rest of the country struggles to get by. One in five families has zero or negative wealth. Two in five Americans couldn’t come up with $400 if they needed it in an emergency.

Previous generations tried to warn us about economic inequality. Former President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1913, “Of all forms of tyranny, the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.”

A generation later, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1941, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

And for a time, we heeded these warnings. Wealth and income inequality peaked in the 1920s before the passage of high personal income tax rates on the rich, a federal estate tax, and other inequality-fighting public policy measures took hold. Americans enjoyed a general flattening of the economic pyramid up until the 1980s when the modern period of tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us begun.

It’s safe to say that a country in which three individuals own more wealth than half the country — as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett do now — is not what Brandeis or Roosevelt hoped for the direction of the country.

Without action, French economist Thomas Piketty warns, the United States will devolve into a “patrimonial capitalism” where the heirs of today’s billionaires dominate our politics, culture, and economy.

The good news is we have solutions to avoid this. A smart step forward would be instituting a federal wealth tax on assets above $20 million, which would raise an estimated $1.9 trillion over 10 years that could be invested in generating economic opportunities for low-wealth families. Another good idea is to tax large inheritances — people’s genetic lottery winnings — as ordinary income.

There’s nothing natural or inevitable about wealth dynasties. Our ancestors recognized this and took action. We can too.

https://wakeup-world.com/2018/12/06/how-aristocracies-are-born/

 

[LV426]

Nope. You have lied from day one about the pension shortage and then lied about me and the positions I hold. In fact you repeatedly lie. Like I said it's an attempted bully approach because frankly you're an a*hole.

No, you have lied about the pension shortage because you don't even know the baseline revenues that are being used to determine this shortage, or even how far out you're looking. When asked for those two simple details that would provide context for your hair-on-fire argument, you flat out refuse to provide them. That says you don't know what you're saying, that you're just repeating propaganda and are completely unable to speak to it when pressed for the slightest detail.

Then you appeal to the authority of the piece, demanding *I* do the work *you* should have already done.

So you say that there's a $1T pension crisis, and you post a link to an Op-Ed. After reading the Op-Ed, what's clear is that the author doesn't make mention of how they're determining that liability, and neither do you. You just see something that confirms your bias, disseminate it, and then defer when it comes to explaining it.

So I ask you, "well, how far out is that liability that you're saying is $1T? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? And what baseline of revenue is being used to determine the liability? Baseline revenues from when the economy was in the Great Recession, when revenues would be lower, or is the baseline from the current economy when revenues would be higher?" These are basic questions you should be able to answer on your own, but you refuse to do that.

It's obvious why.

You're trying to paint a picture of a crisis and you're using specific numbers to do so...only you've been conned because you don't know what those numbers actually are, and then you arrogantly insist I do your fucking work for you.

Eat shit.

 

[cawacko]

I haven't lied about everything, but you have omitted plenty in debates here.

You post links blindly, then refuse to speak to the links you post.

So you're just posting them to provoke and incite. You don't actually contribute anything.

This last post actually made me laugh out loud. I appreciate that.

 

[cawacko]

No, you have lied about the pension shortage because you don't even know the baseline revenues that are being used to determine this shortage, or even how far out you're looking. When asked for those two simple details that would provide context for your hair-on-fire argument, you flat out refuse to provide them. That says you don't know what you're saying, that you're just repeating propaganda and are completely unable to speak to it when pressed for the slightest detail.

Then you appeal to the authority of the piece, demanding *I* do the work *you* should have already done.

So you say that there's a $1T pension crisis, and you post a link to an Op-Ed. After reading the Op-Ed, what's clear is that the author doesn't make mention of how they're determining that liability, and neither do you. You just see something that confirms your bias, disseminate it, and then defer when it comes to explaining it.

So I ask you, "well, how far out is that liability that you're saying is $1T? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? And what baseline of revenue is being used to determine the liability? Baseline revenues from when the economy was in the Great Recession, when revenues would be lower, or is the baseline from the current economy when revenues would be higher?" These are basic questions you should be able to answer on your own, but you refuse to do that.

It's obvious why.

You're trying to paint a picture of a crisis and you're using specific numbers to do so...only you've been conned because you don't know what those numbers actually are, and then you arrogantly insist I do your fucking work for you.

Eat shit.

You lie again in the face of the facts presented. You think you are asking some gotcha question which only shows you don't understand how the system works. You pretend I wrote the articles and did the reports to present some negative image of California, a state you don't even live in.

 

[LV426]

You lie again in the face of the facts presented.

You did not present facts. You presented an Op-Ed, the details of which *you cannot speak to*.

You just disseminated it because it confirmed your bias.

You can't answer simple, contextual questions of your argument.

Is the baseline of revenues from the Great Recession or from California's current booming economy?

Is the liability that much over 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? Because a 50-year $1T liability looks a lot less worse than a 5-year $1T liability. CONTEXT MATTERS because it makes or breaks your argument.

You cannot even speak to the context, and you never have. You defer to your links, but even your links don't speak to that context. Which is why they're propaganda. You got conned by that propaganda because your mind is weak.

 

[Lightbringer]

They're democratic socialists. Which is what we are calling for here. We're not calling for Venezuela, we're calling for Canada. But you leap to Venezuela so you don't have to speak to Canada, and you do that because you're a coward.

No, they're not.

 

[LV426]

You think you are asking some gotcha question which only shows you don't understand how the system works.

Math is universal.

Context matters.

It's only a "gotcha question" if you got caught lying by omission, which you did.

Asking you to provide context is only "gotcha" when the context reveals the disingenuous way you made your argument, fucker.

 

[cawacko]

You did not present facts. You presented an Op-Ed, the details of which *you cannot speak to*.

You just disseminated it because it confirmed your bias.

You can't answer simple, contextual questions of your argument.

Is the baseline of revenues from the Great Recession or from California's current booming economy?

Is the liability that much over 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? Because a 50-year $1T liability looks a lot less worse than a 5-year $1T liability. CONTEXT MATTERS because it makes or breaks your argument.

You cannot even speak to the context, and you never have. You defer to your links, but even your links don't speak to that context. Which is why they're propaganda. You got conned by that propaganda because your mind is weak.

Translation: I don't like the facts so I'm going to make something up to try and discredit them because they go against my ideology and what I stand for. My ideology is more important than being honest.

 

[Truth Detector]

Pretty sure that there were still rich people when the tax rate was 90% through the 50's.

Pretty sure there were rich people when the tax rate was 70% through the 60's and 70's.

Pretty sure there were rich people when the tax rate was raised to 39.6% in the 90's.

Would love to see evidence that there weren't.

I would love to see evidence that reducing the rates caused massive decreases in Government revenue you brain dead asshat. Do you ever get tired of looking like a low IQ idiot? That, of course, was a rhetorical question.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The American way, which is promoted by both major parties, can't work in a 21st. century world. Sharing the wealth between the world's countries on an international basis, and sharing the wealth in America are not in sync with the American way.

did you think there is a finite amount of wealth that needs to be divided up?......

 

[cawacko]

Math is universal.

Context matters.

It's only a "gotcha question" if you got caught lying by omission, which you did.

Asking you to provide context is only "gotcha" when the context reveals the disingenuous way you made your argument, fucker.

Nope. Look at you trying to bully again. The math speaks for itself. You choose not to understand it. That's your issue.

 

[LV426]

You pretend I wrote the articles and did the reports to present some negative image of California, a state you don't even live in.

You posted the fucking Op-Eds, chief, in support of your argument.

Now you're arguing you cannot possibly be held to account for the actions you make here.

What a fucking baby.

So what are the baseline revenues you are using to determine this liability?

You don't know, huh? It's OK...you can admit you don't know and that you were just disseminating that propaganda because you wanted to make a shitty argument. It's fine.

 

[Truth Detector]

None of the living members of these families founded the companies from which their fortunes come — all were started by earlier generations. In fact, more than a third of the Forbes 400 inherited the businesses that generated their wealth. These modern wealth dynasties exercise significant economic power in our current gilded age of extreme inequality.

A new report I co-authored with my colleague Chuck Collins at the Institute for Policy Studies, Billionaire Bonanza 2018, looks at the rise of these wealth dynasties. The Forbes 400 combined own $2.89 trillion, we found. That’s more than the combined wealth of the bottom 64 percent of the United States.

The median family in the United States owns just over $80,000 in household wealth. The richest person in the United States (and the world), Jeff Bezos, has accumulated a fortune nearly 2 million times that amount.

These pictures paint a grim picture of wealth inequality in the United States in 2018. Wealth is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands while the rest of the country struggles to get by. One in five families has zero or negative wealth. Two in five Americans couldn’t come up with $400 if they needed it in an emergency.

Previous generations tried to warn us about economic inequality. Former President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1913, “Of all forms of tyranny, the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.”

A generation later, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1941, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

And for a time, we heeded these warnings. Wealth and income inequality peaked in the 1920s before the passage of high personal income tax rates on the rich, a federal estate tax, and other inequality-fighting public policy measures took hold. Americans enjoyed a general flattening of the economic pyramid up until the 1980s when the modern period of tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us begun.

It’s safe to say that a country in which three individuals own more wealth than half the country — as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett do now — is not what Brandeis or Roosevelt hoped for the direction of the country.

Without action, French economist Thomas Piketty warns, the United States will devolve into a “patrimonial capitalism” where the heirs of today’s billionaires dominate our politics, culture, and economy.

The good news is we have solutions to avoid this. A smart step forward would be instituting a federal wealth tax on assets above $20 million, which would raise an estimated $1.9 trillion over 10 years that could be invested in generating economic opportunities for low-wealth families. Another good idea is to tax large inheritances — people’s genetic lottery winnings — as ordinary income.

There’s nothing natural or inevitable about wealth dynasties. Our ancestors recognized this and took action. We can too.

https://wakeup-world.com/2018/12/06/how-aristocracies-are-born/

No one can say NOTHING with as many words as you do. Except, perhaps, that equally stupid Oneuli.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Did you actually READ what Montgomery wrote?

The middle class in America is shrinking. Is THAT the American way?

????......montgomery's post does not even mention the middle class?...

 

[Truth Detector]

Nope. You have lied from day one about the pension shortage and then lied about me and the positions I hold. In fact you repeatedly lie. Like I said it's an attempted bully approach because frankly you're an a*hole.

I haven't lied about everything, but you have omitted plenty in debates here.

You post links blindly, then refuse to speak to the links you post.

So you're just posting them to provoke and incite. You don't actually contribute anything.

No, you have lied about the pension shortage because you don't even know the baseline revenues that are being used to determine this shortage, or even how far out you're looking. When asked for those two simple details that would provide context for your hair-on-fire argument, you flat out refuse to provide them. That says you don't know what you're saying, that you're just repeating propaganda and are completely unable to speak to it when pressed for the slightest detail.

Then you appeal to the authority of the piece, demanding *I* do the work *you* should have already done.

So you say that there's a $1T pension crisis, and you post a link to an Op-Ed. After reading the Op-Ed, what's clear is that the author doesn't make mention of how they're determining that liability, and neither do you. You just see something that confirms your bias, disseminate it, and then defer when it comes to explaining it.

So I ask you, "well, how far out is that liability that you're saying is $1T? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? And what baseline of revenue is being used to determine the liability? Baseline revenues from when the economy was in the Great Recession, when revenues would be lower, or is the baseline from the current economy when revenues would be higher?" These are basic questions you should be able to answer on your own, but you refuse to do that.

It's obvious why.

You're trying to paint a picture of a crisis and you're using specific numbers to do so...only you've been conned because you don't know what those numbers actually are, and then you arrogantly insist I do your fucking work for you.

Eat shit.

This last post actually made me laugh out loud. I appreciate that.

You lie again in the face of the facts presented. You think you are asking some gotcha question which only shows you don't understand how the system works. You pretend I wrote the articles and did the reports to present some negative image of California, a state you don't even live in.

You did not present facts. You presented an Op-Ed, the details of which *you cannot speak to*.

You just disseminated it because it confirmed your bias.

You can't answer simple, contextual questions of your argument.

Is the baseline of revenues from the Great Recession or from California's current booming economy?

Is the liability that much over 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? Because a 50-year $1T liability looks a lot less worse than a 5-year $1T liability. CONTEXT MATTERS because it makes or breaks your argument.

You cannot even speak to the context, and you never have. You defer to your links, but even your links don't speak to that context. Which is why they're propaganda. You got conned by that propaganda because your mind is weak.

The above defines the circle of stupidity when debating leftist morons.

 

[Truth Detector]

did you think there is a finite amount of wealth that needs to be divided up?......

Don't expect a rational answer from this dullard.