APP - The Wealth Reality

[apple0154]

So you want humans who are at the top 1% to come up with policies to help the poor?

Have you ever asked yourself why liberalism has failed? Do you really think we don't have enough transfer payments from "the rich"?

How much of their money do you want to take?

Look I am not arguing that the top 1% like Buffett and Gates aren't manipulating the political system for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the country. They are. I am arguing that it is crony capitalism that is responsible. They are rent seekers and they could not survive in a free market and a moral government following the laws laid forth in the US Constitution.

For some reason liberals labor under the delusion that some wise bureaucrat is going to make better decisions for all of society than hundreds of millions of individual decisions.

It matters not to you all of the evidence of your failed ideology. It matters not that all of the most despotic regimes of the last century came about by claiming to be champions of the poor. You persist in pushing this failed ideology that is liberalism/socialism/progressivism. You are either willfully ignorant of the past or despotism is what you seek

Or, as I mentioned in msg #19, history also shows excessive wealth at one end and excessive poverty at the other does not end well for anyone. As to "hundreds of millions of individual decisions" that's how society operated from the beginning of time. Certainly since 1776 in the US. until the government had to step in after the Depression. Family, business, country.....nothing can be run efficiently with everyone "doing their own thing". There has to be some overview.

 

[apple0154]

And what exactly do you think is required to "equalize" the wealth?

Taxation. Or the government could ration products.

Take the housing boom, for example. The goal was to lower rates and make qualification easier so poor people could buy homes. Great idea. The problem is the wealthy took advantage of that, as well, and bought multiple homes resulting in fewer homes for the poor so more homes were built until there were too many. Entire subdivisions left empty. The plan could have been limited to first time home buyers. That way, regardless of how much money one has they can not access that plan. They can not hoard houses.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The government did not "have to step in".

There was a depression in the 20s that was over quickly because the government lowered taxes and reduced spending. You won't hear about it because it runs counter to the big government ideology you espouse.

The government should have stayed back but FDR didn't want to let a "good crisis go to waste" so he meddled. It is a fact that FDRs actions not only lengthened the depression but made it deeper.

Why do rely on bureaucrats to care about you? Where does this faith come from when all evidence shows them to fail time after time?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Taxation. Or the government could ration products.

Take the housing boom, for example. The goal was to lower rates and make qualification easier so poor people could buy homes. Great idea. The problem is the wealthy took advantage of that, as well, and bought multiple homes resulting in fewer homes for the poor so more homes were built until there were too many. Entire subdivisions left empty. The plan could have been limited to first time home buyers. That way, regardless of how much money one has they can not access that plan. They can not hoard houses.

So how much of their wealth should the gobblement confiscate?what percentage? Should someone only be allowed to attain a certain net worth? Who decides what that number is?

So the new spin is that it was rich people who could afford their payments that brought about the housing bust it wasn't people who defaulted? It wasn't government intervention?

You price my point. A program designed by someone like you failed miserably because you never, ever, ever think of in intended consequences. The net effect is you and your ilk trash our economy.

We would be better off if you stopped trying to make a difference.

I always find it interesting that those who claim to champion the cause if the poor like yourself claim to be "rich". What if you just satisfied your own conscience with your own resources and left the rest of us alone? You know freedom?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Taxation. Or the government could ration products.

Take the housing boom, for example. The goal was to lower rates and make qualification easier so poor people could buy homes. Great idea. The problem is the wealthy took advantage of that, as well, and bought multiple homes resulting in fewer homes for the poor so more homes were built until there were too many. Entire subdivisions left empty. The plan could have been limited to first time home buyers. That way, regardless of how much money one has they can not access that plan. They can not hoard houses.

BTW you obviously can't be a student of history if you advocate government rationing.

I am sure the gobblement elites will make sure they and their cronies go without while proles like you get first dibs.

 

[I'm Watermark]

So you want humans who are at the top 1% to come up with policies to help the poor?

Have you ever asked yourself why liberalism has failed? Do you really think we don't have enough transfer payments from "the rich"?

How much of their money do you want to take?

Look I am not arguing that the top 1% like Buffett and Gates aren't manipulating the political system for their own gain at the expense of the rest of the country. They are. I am arguing that it is crony capitalism that is responsible. They are rent seekers and they could not survive in a free market and a moral government following the laws laid forth in the US Constitution.

For some reason liberals labor under the delusion that some wise bureaucrat is going to make better decisions for all of society than hundreds of millions of individual decisions.

It matters not to you all of the evidence of your failed ideology. It matters not that all of the most despotic regimes of the last century came about by claiming to be champions of the poor. You persist in pushing this failed ideology that is liberalism/socialism/progressivism. You are either willfully ignorant of the past or despotism is what you seek

Did you not just read my post? What brings you to attack me on positions I don't hold?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Did you not just read my post? What brings you to attack me on positions I don't hold?

I read and understood every word. You believe that more centralized planning by your betters will fix it. You want "policy" solutions. You believe there is some policy that is heretofore unseen in the modern world that will eliminate suffering and poverty if only we could just get along.

If you felt what I said was an "attack" then you are obviously get butthurt very easily and we should cease and desist

 

[Rune]

Like I said we have the most progressive tax code in the world yet the income distribution keeps concentrating at the top.

Now facts like these would cause a thinking person to question their elief system. But you just think you haven't restricted freedom enough.

Oh I am sure you have some romantic notion of proles like you rising up in revolution, but you are nothing but a useful idiot to the Obamas of the world

Apparently it is not really progressive then, is it Alias?

 

[I'm Watermark]

I read and understood every word. You believe that more centralized planning by your betters will fix it. You want "policy" solutions. You believe there is some policy that is heretofore unseen in the modern world that will eliminate suffering and poverty if only we could just get along.

If you felt what I said was an "attack" then you are obviously get butthurt very easily and we should cease and desist

I'm a market democratic socialist that believes in localized economies, not a statist.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Another human being wants to determine what is fair? Maybe 75% of other human beings? Maybe more?

As the video shows more and more of the middle class are becoming poorer and poorer and like the interviews on TV some of the homeless never expected to be in that situation. It's all a matter of critical mass. When that's reached they'll be change.

then explain why liberals and their in pocket politicians continually make things harder for middle class people to become wealthy by adding more and costlier rules and regulations for business.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If everyone got a college education we would all have an above average income.

you are a total fool to actually believe that nonsense

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Taxation. Or the government could ration products.

Take the housing boom, for example. The goal was to lower rates and make qualification easier so poor people could buy homes. Great idea. The problem is the wealthy took advantage of that, as well, and bought multiple homes resulting in fewer homes for the poor so more homes were built until there were too many. Entire subdivisions left empty. The plan could have been limited to first time home buyers. That way, regardless of how much money one has they can not access that plan. They can not hoard houses.

or, alternatively, you could look at the truth/reality and see that poor people weren't ready to buy homes that were out of their price range and decided to stop paying on the house.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I'm a market democratic socialist that believes in localized economies, not a statist.

You will have to define what a "market democratic socialist" is.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

or, alternatively, you could look at the truth/reality and see that poor people weren't ready to buy homes that were out of their price range and decided to stop paying on the house.

Not only did they buy homes out if their price range, they did so with no money down.

Four main culprits were Alan Greenspan who kept interest rates artificially low

Fannie and Freddie Mac

Chris Dodd and Bawney Fwank who would scream "RACISM" if someone pointed out that the scheme was unworkable.

 

[Rune]

then explain why liberals and their in pocket politicians continually make things harder for middle class people to become wealthy by adding more and costlier rules and regulations for business.

Sorry, but it is not liberals doing so.
1. This is nothing new, the wealthy have always attempted to keep all the wealth for themselves, throughout history. This is the very essence of "conservatism".
2. Laws which make it harder to break the wealth barrier are promulgated by the wealthy, not "liberals'.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sorry, but it is not liberals doing so.
1. This is nothing new, the wealthy have always attempted to keep all the wealth for themselves, throughout history. This is the very essence of "conservatism".
2. Laws which make it harder to break the wealth barrier are promulgated by the wealthy, not "liberals'.

your continued hypothesis that wall street writes and enforces our laws is making you look moronic. those laws are voted on and approved by both republicans AND DEMOCRATS in congress and the senate, thus it is indeed liberals doing this, along with conservatives.

 

[Rune]

your continued hypothesis that wall street writes and enforces our laws is making you look moronic. those laws are voted on and approved by both republicans AND DEMOCRATS in congress and the senate, thus it is indeed liberals doing this, along with conservatives.

They do the bidding of their masters, do you deny this truth?

The golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. As true now as ever.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As the video shows more and more of the middle class are becoming poorer and poorer...

IF I have a job earning $1 million a year, and you have a job earning $20k a year, then each year which passes, my wealth is going to grow faster than yours. This disparity is never going to change, it will only broaden as the years go by. Ten years from now, I will be exponentially wealthier than you. All your video shows, is this common sense dynamic of capitalism, which any imbecile should know already.

It's like a marathon race. If one competitor is a pro marathon runner, and another is a virtual novice, who is going to be leading after the first leg? Will the novice close the gap the second leg, or is more likely going to be a greater disparity between he and the pro? What if we extend the marathon for another 25km, would the novice be able to change the dynamics of what is happening? Again, it's more likely this would just result in more disparity. Now, we can hobble the pro, put weights on his ankles so he can't run as fast, and maybe the novice can keep up pace, but let's say the novice actually wins the race, against a hobbled pro... what has been accomplished? Next year, will we need to hobble the novice? How about all the other novices who did't win? Is it fair to them? Eventually, you'd have everyone competing with various weights, and we'd keep adding weight to those who succeeded, trying to make things even, but eventually, we would have all runners so weighted down, they simply couldn't complete the marathon. This is what you want to do with capitalism.

See, what people need to understand here, with the whole "wealth disparity" argument, is that it's not about fairness or making things better, it's about ushering in an age of Socialism, which requires us to kill Capitalism first. Karl Marx discovered that the only way to create a vibrant socialist economy, was to eliminate all capitalism. This works for a hot second, until the ruling class becomes greedy and corrupt, then we all live in squalor until our ruler decides to cap our asses.

 

[Topspin]

Because it is, doesn't make it bad. The option is no rich.
Our poor are better off than dirty European middle class.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

This is why being a moral society is paramount to maintaining a free society