Thread: Liberals blabber that "Conservatives just want to make the rich richer"...

Originally Posted by Subdermal

I'm not sure how many brain cells it takes to discern the differences between Romney and Obama, but it ain't many, as proved by this stupid link.

Mitt can say whatever he wants, his record speaks for itself. He's a flop flopper. Look at Obama, he said a ton of things, and most of which he either didn't follow through on, or changed when he got into office. Also, a lot of those positions wind up at the same destination, with the same results.

The leftist claims that conservatives want decisions made by an elite are laughable, as that is the desire of the left, not the right.

Conservatives believe thecbestvdecisions are made by large numbers of individuals acting in their own interest in a market economy. Leftists want those decisions to be made by a relatively small elite in a central government.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Your statement is that you're attempting to attach some unfair advantage to the top 1% derived on the backs of other income quintiles. That is the asinine message you're attempting to portray with that imbecilic chart. Deny that.

OK, so you admit that you lied. Good.

You fail at math.

No, you do:

If the lowest 20% see a growth in income, they are no longer the lowest 20%, are they, genius?

BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

Yes, they probably are, Einstein. Consider if everyone's income doubles. The lowest 20% are still the lowest 20%.

Genius.

They would then be represented by other quintiles, wouldn't they?

Nope. Guess who's "Not As Smart As a Fifth Grader."

There would then be new "lowest quintile members" to take their place, wouldn't there, Einstein?

You are just adding to your humiliation, now.

That's true of every quintile represented in your pithy chart. Except the top one. The top one will always show an incredibly squiggly line, won't it? Why? BECAUSE THE TOP WILL ALWAYS BE THE TOP, and WEALTH HAS AN EASIER TIME CREATING MORE WEALTH THAN NO WEALTH DOES.

Wrong and idiotic.

Because you do not understand economics in the slightest, you don't understand that it doesn't help anyone else that the wealthiest people make less; if anything, it hurts.

Wrong. The world's most prosperous economies generally have low income inequality, while the least prosperous ones typically have high income inequality.

You continue to humiliate yourself.

You are ignorant to economics.

If English is not your first language, you are excused.

Wealth is not something to be distributed; it is something to be earned.

Please explain how a landowner, for example, earns the money he charges for what government, the community and nature provide.

I'm waiting.

Only through earning something is wealth truly recognized in an economy as real.

No, the wealth the landowner takes out of production in return for contributing nothing TO production is truly recognized as real.

I'll go one further: you cannot find any evidence IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that would be reflected differently in that chart. That chart represents the cold fiscal reality of all people in all time periods. But you have no ability to understand why.

That's plainly a bald falsehood. You know absolutely nothing about economics or economic history. Nothing.

Defendable? Nevermind defense, buttercup, I'm on offense here, and I take offense to incredibly stupid posts by posters ignorant of economics and math.

LOL! You obviously know no math or economics.

You get bent out of shape about the "rich get richer" as though that is some sort of quantifiable injustice, when it is perfectly NATURAL and EXPECTED for that to happen.

No, it is not. It is an artifact of a plutistic system.

The wealthy are such by circumstantial family planning (none of your business if someone's grandfather became wealthy building a railroad, for instance, and left their heirs a fortune); by ingenuity (none of your business that Mark Zuckerberg did something you didn't have the brains to do); by hard work (none of your business if someone worked 18 hour days to build a company that was then sold for 20 million dollars), or by luck (none of your business if someone won the lottery).

It is my business if people get rich by the uncompensated violation of others' rights, which almost all the rich did:

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac

What we see from you is the presumption that because someone is wealthy, they need to pay more. Sorry, sunshine, that ain't gonna fly.

Wrong. The relevant FACT -- not "presumption" -- is that most of the wealthy have obtained most of their wealth unjustly, through privilege, not production, and society cannot heal this injury until it requires them to repay what they have taken.

They have the American Dream here, and not only paid many taxes on the way to that dream, but risked more than you'll ever risk, worked harder than you'll ever work, and likely sacrificed more than you'll ever sacrifice.

More absurd garbage with no basis in fact. Read and learn:

Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/sec...secretsqa.html

Little of the super-duper uber-rich's wealth is earned by actual
productive contributions. It is obtained by making oneself the
beneficiary of unjust privileges, mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating
and dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate."

1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."

2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges

3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources

4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges

5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!

6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources

7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!

8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!

9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
productive

10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...

11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"

12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."

13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership

14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege

15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!

16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege

17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege

18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive

19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)

20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege

21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges

Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made"
billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) could actually have made
the bulk of their money through actual productive contributions. The
rest were all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The
productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of
whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.

Your chart does not demonstrate any need to raise taxes. You fail.

No, YOU fail. You have FAILED. You are a FAILURE.

An economy would do better if less money was taken out of it and controlled by a non-wealth producer like Government.

Another absurd lie. Government produces valuable services and infrastructure. It is rich, greedy takers like landowners, banksters and IP monopolists who are non-wealth producers.

just what the hell did you EXPECT to take place as money keeps being printed??

The money is being created by rich, greedy banksters, not printed by government.

Like I said: you're ignorant to economics, and the damage Keynesian monetary policy has on the very things about which you bleat. You want to 'fix' the wealth gap? Stop relying on printing currency with increasing numbers of zeroes on it.

Utter economic ignorance.

The only real gap that matters is if the lowest is going backwards in standards of living as the highest go forward - but that's not happening.

It clearly IS happening, as the mushrooming homelessness problem proves.

The poorest in this country are FAR better off than they were 30 years ago.

They provably are not. There are far more homeless now than there were 30 years ago. You are just spewing a tsunami of stupid lies.

If everyone's income tripled, YOU WOULD BE IN THE EXACT SAME ECONOMIC CONDITION THAT YOU ARE NOW.

Objectively false.

You lose.

You FAIL. You have FAILED. You are a FAILURE.