Quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the rich

I think you're the one saying that the rich can't defend themselves, and that the rest of us should use the power of government to defend them. Aren't you?

No. The wealthy should not have a bigger voice in government than the poor. That creates a government that is actively working against the interest of the majority of Americans.

 

Why would the wealth gap cause people on the lower end to live a lesser life? Wealth is not fixed, there is no pie.

 

That explains NOTHING; and you need to learn that.

How much of this world can 'someone' own. And when they leave (cease breathing) what is theirs?

I am certain we disagree.

 

Of course, what you are saying is true. And it amazes me that some people can't hold their minds out just a little further than where their nose is... and see reality a little better than they do.

 

That's true, but I think the problem is that if the gap is too big, the wealthy have all the leverage in every transaction, and since, for the most part, historically, the wealthy are not interested in whether or not everyone else is living a good life, and may in fact find it advantageous to oppose everyone else living the good life, putting all the economic power in their hands is detrimental to the rest of society.

I don't think we should get rid of rich people. But they shouldn't run everything, which is what happens when the income gap gets too big.

 

Jon Corzine, John Edwards, and a host of other fat cat leftists talk one way and act another.

 

Amen!!

 

We don't need a list of names; we need a list of America's real problems and the will to resolve them.

 

We're already there, but I think the problem comes from the government having the power to let them have an effect in the first place rather the money that lets them buys and sell out politicians. Without government there to enforce the rules they put in place there wouldn't be an issue as they could not affect our lives involuntarily. Sure if you're dumb enough to sign a contract saying that they get your first born child (and yes I think such things should not be legal, just going crazy) then that's on you. However as is they just have to bribe enough politicians and the government will force you to give them your first born (again, don't think that's going to be happening, just crazyness).

 

Sure .. lets all just sit back and let God take care of things. Since when does God intervene directly in the affairs of men .. say .. in the last 1000 years ?

As soon as you say "let God take care of it" we run into a problem. The problem is that God does not speak to "US" .. he does not show up on David Letterman like Obama .. he does not take out ads in the newspaper or put up billboards telling us what we are to do.

Since God does not tell us what he wants .. humans try and fill in the Gap. Soon you get humans pretending to speak on behalf of God .. "God says this and God says that".

If these humans get control they start burning witches, killing Jews, torturing people, and stealing from people "in the name of God".

They do these things while calling out "Praise the Lord"

 

The rich have too much money. The healthy have too much health. The smart have too much education. Therefore, no more vitamins or Doctors for the healthy. No more libraries, education or access to knowledge for the smart. And of course, no more money for the rich. Nevermind that it's the rich, the educated, the smart and the healthy who provide jobs, examples, fitness and understanding for everyone else. Let's just go ahead and plunder them like the ignorant savages we are.

 

It's hilarious that the progressive liberals/socialists actually believe everyone deserves the trophy.

ROFLMAO!@!@!@!@!

 

That's what the income gap measures. The higher the income gap is the smaller the middle class is. Until it's gone entirely and everyone is either poor or rich.No in-between.

 

It's sad that you don't understand liberals enough to even know why you're against them.

Liberals don't want everyone to be rich. There is no way possible for that to exist.

Liberals just want a proper ladder to the top. Everyone who works hard enough should be able to make it to the top of the ladder. Currently the economy rewards luck and inheritance more than hard work.

 

Proper ladder? What are you pulling now frat?

And if you're talking about your own government that bailed out unions and the corrupt bankers during the crisis which is strongly supported by you progressive liberals/socialist, I've never seen any hard-working people go unrewarding for their commitments.

 

Would you give the government the power and responsibility to enforce that contract? 'Cause I'm all cool with taking the government out of the economy entirely if we really do it entirely. If the government stops backing the property claims of the rich, and enforcing the contracts that serve the rich, then I'll stop asking them to provide welfare to the little people that they step on in the process, and I think we'll all be better off.

But when people say that the government shouldn't help people, what they usually mean is that the government shouldn't help poor people. We're so accustomed to the many ways that the government helps rich people that for the most part we don't even think about what the government really does for them -- namely, enforcing their property claims and contracts.

 

Clearly and brilliantly expressed.

(Corporations and the wealthy built 'some things'; but certainly not 'everything'. Much of what has been done, surely belongs to us ALL.)

 

Contracts are a key necessity and their enforcement is a reasonable use of government. Pretty much every interaction you make is a form of contract. I'm also not sure why you oppose contracts as they work towards your benefit. For instance you are promised your wage via an open contract; your company can't just decide they're not going to pay you. When you order something over again there is a contract; that's why you don't order a keyboard and get a duck. There is nothing wrong with contract enforcement. What I would like to see is better clarity of contracts enforced so that people can actually read them in a reasonable amount of time before signing them.

 

That's your opinion; the Constitution hands us ALL a "contract". We'll see what comes of things.

The best we can do is to ENSURE that every person is represented EQUALLY. This NONSENSE about assuring the wealthy more of a political voice... is self-destructive to this society and Democracy as a whole. We see it, we can feel it and we surely KNOW it. The only question is:

Are we READY to do something about it?!

 

The rich and their tax accounts and tax lawyers make a laughing stock out of the U. S. Tax Code. We have all been told, for decades, that the rich pay the most taxes, but by the time their beancounters dance their way through the U. S. Tax Code, in reality, the rich pay little or NOTHING.

Nevertheless, I would pose one question to those in this thread... how many of you have ever been employed by a poor person? How many of you even want to be employed by a poor person? How likely are you to be successful working for an employer who cannot even be successful himself?

Do you begin to see why it is inadvisable ever to put your faith in people like Obama, who know NOTHING about business, economies, or what it takes to be a success outside the narrow, regimented tedium of government civil "service"?

 

That's my opinion? Tell me, how will the world work without contracts, when no one is required to follow through with anything?

 

I read what you wrote; I didn't write it.

Where did I say "contracts" aren't needed? I'm concerned with the way the "contracts" are written and applied. If we weight excessive advantage toward the wealthy... what good is that and how will our political system remain healthy (if we REALLY are concerned about the rights of individuals)?

I've had some semi-aware interlocutor try to convince me here (today), that the "wealthy" deserve even MORE protection under the law than other individuals (because they were wealthy and had more to lose).

I'm not advocating a departure from laws as we know them... but certainly I don't want those with extra-wealth GAMING the laws and subsequently the system. If any should be given more opportunity to fend for themselves, it should be the wealthy. They don't need MORE advantage and MORE protection than an individual, poor, working poor or middle-class American. And anyone trying to sell me that notion, isn't very worthy of credibility or respect in my view.

For the the last 30+ years, we have afforded the wealthiest Americans extra opportunity and advantage; it has only widened the GAP between those with the majority of opportunity... and those who have know what it is to struggle and clamor for the same. Here we have Mitt Romney blaming 47% of the American people... instead of being compassionate and GENUINE, addressing what has actually held success AWAY from the middle class. The middle class has been fracking RIPPED OFF by the monied interests, who pretend that the advantages the FREELY HAND OUT to corporations are not leveraged by the collateral of the very blood, sweat and tears of the working American (yes, those within the median income of $50k per year).

The WEALTHY??? No problem, we know there are rich people and they DO matter... sure. Even so, the things they can do with their money should NEVER have included the attempted PURCHASING of legislators and laws. What the HELL business do billionaires have, offering MONEY for favors to our legislators??!! Why has legalized BRIBERY been coded into this nation's policies? Darn!!!

Protect the wealthy MORE, my ASS. Let's get real folks!! If we don't take up the task of making sure we are HEARD politically... we will in-turn be SILENCED. Take one honest look around, and see if that isn't what they (the wealthy guys, the ones who are all about money) are trying to do right now.

Wake up, folks.

 

So if contract enforcement and the backing of property claims, which are supports for the wealthy, are necessary -- then why is support for everyone else wrong?

 

Those are two entirely separate issues.

BTW contracts and property rights support everyone. They are hardly something that only benefit the rich. Everyone deals with contracts and anyone who saves up and buys property deals with property rights.

 

Same goes for public education, health care, and a lot of other things that would greatly benefit a much larger number of people. If we're going to have the government protect the wealthy, it should protect everyone else, too.