Trump Administration is Advancing Class Warfare Against Us

Then explain! I'm starting to lose patience here. You need to clearly, fully communicate your question with context. You say you're "curious why you exempt yourself from the rules you expect others live by." That sounds like a vague accusation.

I have no idea what you're referring to and what you mean, and we aren't moving one step forward from here with me assuming and speculating as to what you mean. So pretend we never have communicated in any way and that you read something I wrote, and that you want to ask me about it. Ask by starting out framing, quoting me, establishing the ideas that you want to ask about, and then ask about them.

I don't have a good feeling about this conversation and where it's going at this point. It's up to you to salvage it with forthright honesty and transparency.

 

Its your thread. I asked a simple question that would allow me to understand your position. Without asking questions, there is no way to separate the sincere from the sanctimonious.

Your avoid-dance sufficiently establishes your position. Thank you.

 

I thought you wanted respectful conversation. So much for that.

I have made many different statements in this thread, and if asking you to explain what you mean with your question is too much, you aren't interested in an answer. Your question doesn't appear to relate to anything in my OP. And I'm done wasting time. Your non-response now would indicate that you really weren't interested in conversation in the first place, contrary to your claim.

 

It doesn't matter! Just so much fluff.

The common person who invests in Wall St. activities is going to lose regardless of advice.
I remember the days when Microsoft use to split, several times a year. Not anymore.
Where are Microsoft profits going today compared to decades ago?
Where are the reliable, long term investments?
One needs to watch their portfolio electronically and receive "Alerts" and buy/sell to maybe, show a profit.
The big traders can buy / sell gargantuan amounts and profit on a fraction of a penny change.
How can the little guy compete with that?
And when the company is fined for bad behavior, the stock holder pays. Not the individual responsible for those unlawful decisions. Ahhh, the Corporate Shield.

Solutions: Stockholders Rights.
1) No Corporate Shield should be permitted for illegal behaviors. Individual responsibility.
2) Tax long term profits at a lower rate than short term trade profits.
3) Require a % of profits be issued to the Stockholder.
4) Deny bonuses, and such benefits to CEO types who were at the helm when losses occur.
5) No Golden Parachutes or excessive retirements. Likewise excessive CEO salaries.

I believe the liar President Obama spoke to some of these issues but, never acted on them.
Obama served his monied masters as Hillary would have.

I don't blame Trump or the GOP. We "know" what they stand for.
I blame my Democratic Party that has become Republican-lite. ​

Wonderful gimmie programs at the costs of working people and not those who can afford it.

Wall St. is a fools game.
Even Mutual Funds where managers take care of themselves.


Moi

r > g

Make Pay Its' Fair Share!​

 

So you DO receive, and then unthinkingly regurgitate, talking points.
I mean, it's always been kinda obvious - but thanks for the verification.

 

Isn't that how a "collective" is supposed to work? Everyone shares equally? If they don't share equally then how is the "collective" any different than a LLC with employees?

 

The original idea of the collective is that everyone shares equally the cooperative.

Are you surprised that when it comes down to brass tacks that the guy advocating collectives doesn't want to share equally?

 

The idea behind communism, whose root is the Latin "communis", is that everyone in the collective shares equally, no one has more than any other. Yet it is apparent that isn't really what you want.

What is also apparent is that you appear to be a hypocrite. How can you be a Marxist Socialist if you aren't for the "communis"?

What it actually sounds like is that you are just against having bosses.

 

He's a hypocrite like most Marxist Democrats. He's all for being a Marxist Socialist until it comes to sharing what *he* has. With Marxism and Socialism there is no such thing as private property so he really shouldn't even have anything to share! It should have been in the communal pot!

 

No need to trouble yourself further. Your position is crystal clear.

For the rest of us, whenever someone gets up on a soapbox and condemns capitalism, its always interesting to hear what they do for a living and why they don't think their rules apply to them. This is not surprising as there has never been a shortage of hypocrites on political forums. If you work hard and are successful, you should feel guilty for making more than those unwilling to take the same risks. So what is stopping you? Go give part of your paycheck to the clerical staff. Go open a business and prove your theory by paying employees equally.

If you are planning for retirement and want the advice you receive to be in your best interest, hire a fiduciary adviser.

If you want to make more money, make your time more valuable. I suppose you can play the victim and see how that plays out. When I got my first job, no one tried to convince me that I was prey. Instead, I was grateful to have an opportunity to learn new skills and always gave them more than what they paid me for.

When you kill the incentive to take risks, where do people for jobs?

 

He said he's a retired software developer. Developer, not sales. No competitors. No work. No buyer to interest. Retired. Hard work done. Finis! You'll likely never make it. Because this exposes how you think. How you value others. How you value yourself. What you and others do for money. That's it The entire content of your judgement and character. No work, no value. Bang, Dead. How sad to be you.

 

The Republican Congress, Senate and President have duped hard-working Americans. The rewards will go to the One-Percenters.

 

At least I asked questions instead of assuming. No reasonable person would think I was talking about the retirement part of his career. I was speaking of the part where he profited more from an hour of his time than other employees.

You must be in a comfortable position to make such assumptions about me. Lets hear about your experience sharing the wealth.

 

So THAT'S what your games were about!! You have no idea what I advocate or what socialism has become today. You asked me nothing about that. Instead you fantasized and assumed what I'm about, made up a story, assigned it to me, and criticized your made up story. And now, having "successfully" criticized your own story, you declare victory and strut off, pleased with yourself.

That's a hell of a way to live. Have a good life. LOL!!

 

In case you're really interested, I've found that fascinating. (link-->)Here's the answer, by the way.

It's always amazed me how people fawn all over jerks like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who were far more lucky than particularly brilliant compared to their peers. More ruthless and incredibly greedy? Sure, fine. They were both spoiled brats who happened to be in the right place at the right time and let it go to their heads. I've never cared enough about Jobs to study him in depth, plus he's dead now so who cares. But Bill & Melinda got my attention. Remember ten, fifteen years ago when Bill was all over the news claiming the super rich needed to give at least half their money away? No? Check out this link from seven years ago. Loses momentum quickly, but starts out so great, right?

Our favorite. Who knew. Mother Teresa, Eva Peron, Audrey Hepburn, Princess Diana, Oprah Winfrey,... move over! Never mind how much more challenging it would be for a billionaire to give half their money away to anyone who's not "less fortunate", this "could be" the greatest thing since the invention of sliced bread! It's going to "charity", yay! To the poor? Oh, who cares? No, no, not so fast! How about "giving" to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, does that count? Of course. Oh, okay, so a tax free or deductible contribution or "gift" to the family company. Hmm, nice way to ensure the kids pay no inheritance tax on it and never need worry about working at a real job. Helping one's own children. Wonderful. Not so "less fortunate" after all, but why be picky.

The first link shows how Bill sucks tens of billions out of Microsoft "Automatically". Been doing that for at least the past 15 years. Listed as "Director" but plays no actual role any more. Used to be $20 billion year after year. Not sure what it is now. Add it up if you want. Small wonder then why Microsoft only recently appears to be recovering. But the real question is this: How does one jump up and down publicly swearing they're giving their money away (or half of it), year after year after year, and manage to stay at the top of the Forbes List? F-ing amazing, ain't it? How about helping to destroy our public school system though? Surely, ruining one of our nation's greatest creations, most successful tools for advancing our economy, and sources of collective pride counts as a true and worthy accomplishment? No? Wow, tough crowd, tough crowd.

 

I take it you agree we need laws requiring sharing a minimum % of profits with stock holders. More here: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...fare-against-us.508070/page-6#post-1067669887

 

Your cutting off my quote is to mislead. Why would unions want non-union members to be able to vote on union matters?

 

Obviously.

Using the office of POTUS to enrich himself (and his rich buddies) was always in Trump's plan.

 

The irony, eh? {link}

{link}

And the country and freedom have been lost ever since.

 

Of course. All your "Solutions" make sense. I don't spend much time worrying about stockholders, tbh. I say "Break 'em up!" Till they're small enough to drown in a bathtub. Then everyone could easily be their own boss. Or not. To each their own. I'd also have set a maximum wage first, then seen if we really needed to worry about setting a minimum or living wage a few years after that.

 

"Say what?"

I was simply requesting clarification. Either one is a member or they are not, yes? What is a non-union member? No group would want non-members voting on member matters.

 

More unsupportable nonsense.

 

100% wrong. This is your game, not mine. You criticized others for being just like you. Exposing hypocrisy is not exactly a challenge worthy of claiming victory. Reading other posts, it looks like I am not the only one who sees through your facade.

Perhaps those who start threads criticizing others should know that their own actions (Or lack thereof) may be called into question. There are a few sayings that come to mind:

Don't dish it out if...
People living in glass houses...
The pot calling the kettle...

Getting back on topic, I don't need the government involved in my investments. I am not stupid enough to think that a broker works in my best interest. (The same way I wouldn't expect a software company to recommend their competition.) Maybe we should pass a law requiring McDonalds to send their customers to the salad place across the street because it is in the customers best interest!

 

Where"? Quote me. Prove your claim.

 

OK, but I don't have a claim. I challenged your claim.

I can't help but to notice you chose a skilled profession. I assume you did so to provide for your family. You commanded a higher rate of pay than the receptionist, mail room employee or janitor. (AKA your prey) I do not know which software you helped develop, but I do know there is competition. If the sales staff worked hard to obtain clients only to recommend a less expensive competitor, your position along with all the others would soon disappear. Perhaps they were hired to work in the companies best interest!

How much of your salary did you give to the lower paying positions? Why is their 8 hours of life less valuable than yours?