Commentator
No, he won't suffer at all, just accept being "only" 100,000 times richer than everybody else, instead of a gazillion times richer. And if 100,000 times more isn't worth your while, then don't do it. In the end it will be better for him, he'll be in a better world and still way, Way, WAY ahead of everybody.Originally Posted by Taxpayer
You're exaggerating again... and you really don't seem to understand what most of those words mean.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Guru
Which words Sir? The part where a corporation is a legally defined person? Or that greed, rape and acceptable are all corporate terms?
EVERYBODY call in sick tomorrow, then watch real change begin. Hit the corporate fat cats directly in the pocketbook.
Commentator
Why not? What am I getting out of "him" getting his and being 100% free to do as he pleases? He takes EVERYTHING, sends the jobs elsewhere, cuts the govt. services, eliminates the teachers, cuts the school funding, eliminates police, cuts my job, cuts your job (AND I WORK HARD TOO!) etc. etc. etc. and so forth, all to save himself for paying taxes, and there's just a few of "him" and billions of "us"...so why should we agree to put up with that CRAP and live crappier lives than before just for "him"? So he's "smarter" and we can't compete with him and he is taking averything, so why not say F-HIM, there's a billion of US and we are dumb, but we want to live too, and we're not even asking to live like "him", so pisss on "him".
He's not taking anything you aren't choosing to give him, he's not breaking any of the rules you didn't both agree to. You are.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Contributor
Ok here's my problem with the "rich doesn't deserve it" argument.
If you're willing to take their money away as "they don't deserve it" then you can do it to anybody. Who really and honestly deserves their wealth? Where are you going to draw your line? When everyone has exactly the same? Or how bout go one step further, I mean people don't have genetic unity, how bout we give more money to cripples and people of lesser intelligence, because obviously they deserve a boost, and less money to the athletic and intelligent because they already have so much. Then we decide on a life limit, just because people don't deserve to live longer than everyone else. Just to make sure "it's fair".
You're never going to get "fair" so how bout we stick with "just". You keep your hands off what is mine and I'll keep my hands off what is yours. Sound ok?
Taxpayer liked this post
Analyst
There's no real distinction between "just" and "fair". You're just making up your own particular concept of what is "just", which is ironic when you already stated that no one has a moral claim over wealth.
Where you "draw the line" is progressive taxation.
And there is nothing wrong with having government subsidised health insurance and or disability insurance.
Guru
The republican failed theory of just "take care of the rich and it'll eventually trickle down to you" is the new Romney plan, except in his plan, they'll just take everything.
EVERYBODY call in sick tomorrow, then watch real change begin. Hit the corporate fat cats directly in the pocketbook.
Zosiasmom liked this post
Guru
You're missing the point. This is about the moral and legal justification for limiting free choice using Government. Saying "I have a choice" because I can move out of the country isn't a legitimate counter-argument, because there isn't a place to move without Government can be co-opted in the same manner.
For that reason, it isn't analogous to claim that fleeing a country because its Government is oppressive is "the same kind of choice" as leaving an employer due to oppressiveness.
Paul Ryan 2016. By then, even the most stupid among us would be unable to deny the need.
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
Truth is, you could shove Obama's knowledge of small business operations and job creation up an gnats butt and it would rattle around like a marble in an empty supertanker. -- Neil Boortz
Commentator
No, I am not breaking a single rule, it is within the rules to elect a government that will tax "him" MORE to finance a decent society for all of US.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks