I believe it was Warren Buffett who said many years ago, "If we equally divide the nation's wealth today amongst all, it will be less than 10 years before 80% of the population returns to their previous financial status. Those who had the most will get it back, those who had the least will give it back."
0
I believe it was Warren Buffett who said many years ago, "If we equally divide the nation's wealth today amongst all, it will be less than 10 years before 80% of the population returns to their previous financial status. Those who had the most will get it back, those who had the least will give it back."
I believe it was Warren Buffett who said many years ago, "If we equally divide the nation's wealth today amongst all, it will be less than 10 years before 80% of the population returns to their previous financial status. Those who had the most will get it back, those who had the least will give it back."
I 100% believe this!
0
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
I believe it was Warren Buffett who said many years ago, "If we equally divide the nation's wealth today amongst all, it will be less than 10 years before 80% of the population returns to their previous financial status. Those who had the most will get it back, those who had the least will give it back."
I believe it was Warren Buffett who said many years ago, "If we equally divide the nation's wealth today amongst all, it will be less than 10 years before 80% of the population returns to their previous financial status. Those who had the most will get it back, those who had the least will give it back."
0
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
I believe it was Warren Buffett who said many years ago, "If we equally divide the nation's wealth today amongst all, it will be less than 10 years before 80% of the population returns to their previous financial status. Those who had the most will get it back, those who had the least will give it back."
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
homogenous societies for the most part. That's why.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
homogenous societies for the most part. That's why.
'wealth' 'distribution' has become such a politically loaded fucktarded meme. People sound so goddam confused when talking about it, but that's to be expected when Americans in a Capitalist system cannot define wealth or even capital
0
'wealth' 'distribution' has become such a politically loaded fucktarded meme. People sound so goddam confused when talking about it, but that's to be expected when Americans in a Capitalist system cannot define wealth or even capital
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
The reason the United States exists is because many Europeans took a chance on coming here. That is many of our ancestors. They were self-reliant individualists. Even if you are a big government liberal your ancestors weren't. They left their native countries for financial, political, and religious freedom.
Imagine leaving your native country not knowing what lay ahead. They didn't know if they would even make it here alive. Many didn't.
The Europeans who were satisfied with the status quo stayed back. They are the ones that are still there today. Like their ancestors five hundred years ago who trusted the king, they trust the government.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
The reason the United States exists is because many Europeans took a chance on coming here. That is many of our ancestors. They were self-reliant individualists. Even if you are a big government liberal your ancestors weren't. They left their native countries for financial, political, and religious freedom.
Imagine leaving your native country not knowing what lay ahead. They didn't know if they would even make it here alive. Many didn't.
The Europeans who were satisfied with the status quo stayed back. They are the ones that are still there today. Like their ancestors five hundred years ago who trusted the king, they trust the government.
'wealth' 'distribution' has become such a politically loaded fucktarded meme. People sound so goddam confused when talking about it, but that's to be expected when Americans in a Capitalist system cannot define wealth or even capital
sounds like in the video they define wealth as the size of the bank account and securities portfolio.
0
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
'wealth' 'distribution' has become such a politically loaded fucktarded meme. People sound so goddam confused when talking about it, but that's to be expected when Americans in a Capitalist system cannot define wealth or even capital
sounds like in the video they define wealth as the size of the bank account and securities portfolio.
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
I think that's part of it, but a giant part of the ability of European countries to have such socialistic policies is due to the fact that they largely do not have to allocate any of their revenue to defense costs. They have the US to thank for that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
But this is precisely why scandinavian countries happily practice constant wealth redistribution through taxes and government intervention.
Call it what you want. Call it socialist, anti-american - whatever you want. The simple difference between their system and the US system is that the people trust the govt to act on the peoples behalf with these funds. In America - maybe it is the setup of the system that makes it impossible - I dont know - but the vast majority of Americans would never trust the govt with such a responsibility. But over there - they openly do.
They are consistently the happiest people on earth, they consistently have the best health care on earth, they consistently have top 10% education scores in the world and on and on.
On a personal note - I have spent time in Norway and Sweden. I would move there in a heartbeat.
I think that's part of it, but a giant part of the ability of European countries to have such socialistic policies is due to the fact that they largely do not have to allocate any of their revenue to defense costs. They have the US to thank for that.
Are we surprised that 9 out of 10 people believe that "wealth" should be more evenly distributed? Of course not! To be surprised by that is to be surprised by the fact that 9 out of 10 people think that we should raise taxes on the "rich" or top 10% because the rich are really the problem, right? Those people who are already paying a vast majority of the total tax dollars just need to pay more and then everything would be OK.
/end sarcasm.
And why does someone think that just because there is wealth inequality that the system is skewed "unfairly"? Do you think janitors should make as much money as doctors? Should waiters and waitresses pull down attorney salaries?
This guy finds the first chart "difficult to wrap his head around" because he's an idiot. The "dreaded" socialism? YES! SOCIALISM IS DREADED. If you think socialism works then you have not paid one ****ing ounce of attention to history and you clearly do not understand fundamental human nature.
What is "ideal" is often not realistic. It would be "ideal" if people didn't kill each other but guess what? People always have in the past and people always will. The problem begins when the government thinks that it is so all-knowing that the government can change reality into the "ideal" through the threat of force. If only we listened to the government! They clearly are the marketplace of ideas, what with all the competition they have in providing government services and all the history of successes that they have in changing reality to what they "wish" would occur -- you know, the "ideal".
I also think it would be interesting if he took the "poorest" class who is down to "pocket change" on his stupid graph and compared them to the rest of the poor in other parts in the world. I wonder if that graph would be as informative for this guy. Probably not, because poor people in other parts of the world would LOVE to be "poor" in America.
BTW -- the logical conclusion to this guys' bitching about wealth inequality surely is that "we must take from the rich guy to give to the poor people!" 1% of America has 40% of the nation's wealth. So clearly the solution has to be taking money from him to give to others.
I don't believe the CEO is working 380x harder than the average worker. But I do believe that the CEO may be 380 times more valuable to a company than the average worker. And either way, a system of capitalism is not based on some idea of fairness or equality -- that is in direct opposition to the whole system itself! If you want fairness or equality, then you are in the wrong country. But if you want the ability to improve your lot in life, you are in the best country in the world.
Fancy graphs and videos don't change the fundamental reality of the situation.
0
To the video in general:
Are we surprised that 9 out of 10 people believe that "wealth" should be more evenly distributed? Of course not! To be surprised by that is to be surprised by the fact that 9 out of 10 people think that we should raise taxes on the "rich" or top 10% because the rich are really the problem, right? Those people who are already paying a vast majority of the total tax dollars just need to pay more and then everything would be OK.
/end sarcasm.
And why does someone think that just because there is wealth inequality that the system is skewed "unfairly"? Do you think janitors should make as much money as doctors? Should waiters and waitresses pull down attorney salaries?
This guy finds the first chart "difficult to wrap his head around" because he's an idiot. The "dreaded" socialism? YES! SOCIALISM IS DREADED. If you think socialism works then you have not paid one ****ing ounce of attention to history and you clearly do not understand fundamental human nature.
What is "ideal" is often not realistic. It would be "ideal" if people didn't kill each other but guess what? People always have in the past and people always will. The problem begins when the government thinks that it is so all-knowing that the government can change reality into the "ideal" through the threat of force. If only we listened to the government! They clearly are the marketplace of ideas, what with all the competition they have in providing government services and all the history of successes that they have in changing reality to what they "wish" would occur -- you know, the "ideal".
I also think it would be interesting if he took the "poorest" class who is down to "pocket change" on his stupid graph and compared them to the rest of the poor in other parts in the world. I wonder if that graph would be as informative for this guy. Probably not, because poor people in other parts of the world would LOVE to be "poor" in America.
BTW -- the logical conclusion to this guys' bitching about wealth inequality surely is that "we must take from the rich guy to give to the poor people!" 1% of America has 40% of the nation's wealth. So clearly the solution has to be taking money from him to give to others.
I don't believe the CEO is working 380x harder than the average worker. But I do believe that the CEO may be 380 times more valuable to a company than the average worker. And either way, a system of capitalism is not based on some idea of fairness or equality -- that is in direct opposition to the whole system itself! If you want fairness or equality, then you are in the wrong country. But if you want the ability to improve your lot in life, you are in the best country in the world.
Fancy graphs and videos don't change the fundamental reality of the situation.
I think that's part of it, but a giant part of the ability of European countries to have such socialistic policies is due to the fact that they largely do not have to allocate any of their revenue to defense costs. They have the US to thank for that.
And exactly WHY is it that the USA must be the World's Police force? Would it have anything at all to do with the Corporate Fukks and their never ending greedy ambitions to squeeze every penny out of every corner of the globe?
It won't be much longer until the Middle and Upper Classes finally wake up from their stupor. It's only taken them about sixty years of getting azz-fukked.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
I think that's part of it, but a giant part of the ability of European countries to have such socialistic policies is due to the fact that they largely do not have to allocate any of their revenue to defense costs. They have the US to thank for that.
And exactly WHY is it that the USA must be the World's Police force? Would it have anything at all to do with the Corporate Fukks and their never ending greedy ambitions to squeeze every penny out of every corner of the globe?
It won't be much longer until the Middle and Upper Classes finally wake up from their stupor. It's only taken them about sixty years of getting azz-fukked.
assuming the figures supporting the graph are accurate, i didn't get that at all. i didn't think the point was that the system is skewed unfairly, i got that the system is completely rigged and the inequality is off the charts.
socialism is a term that is completely understood today, but that's what happens when rightwingers hijack a word with that many letters in nit. if the chart is somewhat accurate, it seems like we do have some warped version of socialsim occurring where the government does own the means of production and distribution of goods but rather than distribute them to the people, they are distributing them to their owners, the corporations.
i will bnow label our system - reverse colloquial socialism. expect that to catch on in the high school political science classes any day now.
0
assuming the figures supporting the graph are accurate, i didn't get that at all. i didn't think the point was that the system is skewed unfairly, i got that the system is completely rigged and the inequality is off the charts.
socialism is a term that is completely understood today, but that's what happens when rightwingers hijack a word with that many letters in nit. if the chart is somewhat accurate, it seems like we do have some warped version of socialsim occurring where the government does own the means of production and distribution of goods but rather than distribute them to the people, they are distributing them to their owners, the corporations.
i will bnow label our system - reverse colloquial socialism. expect that to catch on in the high school political science classes any day now.
I will never figure out why those at the bottom will worship leaders who propose socialistic policies while those at the bottom live in mud huts and those at the top live in palaces. Examples can be seen throughout history in every part of the world.
People like Castro, Lenin, and Mao convinced people things were bad. They led a revolution and were successful. After the revolution they lived a life of luxury while the people were still poor.
No different than liberal politicians in this country. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others convince the poor how bad things are. The poor put those politicians in positions of wealth and power while the poor are still poor.
Every country and form of government will consist of haves and have nots. Most countries have few at the top and a lot on the bottom. At least in the capitalists United States there are a lot more haves (which is a good thing.)
The 1% vs the 99% isn't an accurate statement in the United States. It is accurate for most of the world but not here. In the US we have the 1%, then 10%, then 40%, then 49%. For those of you that aren't good at arithmetic that equals 100%
0
I will never figure out why those at the bottom will worship leaders who propose socialistic policies while those at the bottom live in mud huts and those at the top live in palaces. Examples can be seen throughout history in every part of the world.
People like Castro, Lenin, and Mao convinced people things were bad. They led a revolution and were successful. After the revolution they lived a life of luxury while the people were still poor.
No different than liberal politicians in this country. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others convince the poor how bad things are. The poor put those politicians in positions of wealth and power while the poor are still poor.
Every country and form of government will consist of haves and have nots. Most countries have few at the top and a lot on the bottom. At least in the capitalists United States there are a lot more haves (which is a good thing.)
The 1% vs the 99% isn't an accurate statement in the United States. It is accurate for most of the world but not here. In the US we have the 1%, then 10%, then 40%, then 49%. For those of you that aren't good at arithmetic that equals 100%
cano, how can you look at the distribution of wealth in this country and identify anything about this country that even approaches the concept of socialism? to me, it looks like the exact opposite of socialism, if there is one. to me, it looks exactly like a plutocracy. this is maybe the best reason why your vote has no meaning.
0
cano, how can you look at the distribution of wealth in this country and identify anything about this country that even approaches the concept of socialism? to me, it looks like the exact opposite of socialism, if there is one. to me, it looks exactly like a plutocracy. this is maybe the best reason why your vote has no meaning.
cano, how can you look at the distribution of wealth in this country and identify anything about this country that even approaches the concept of socialism? to me, it looks like the exact opposite of socialism, if there is one. to me, it looks exactly like a plutocracy. this is maybe the best reason why your vote has no meaning.
We are being nudged in that direction. Obamacare, Food Stamps, Unemployment Checks. More and more people depending on the government. It's a slow process. If a certain group tried to make all these changes too quick the masses wouldn't go for it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
cano, how can you look at the distribution of wealth in this country and identify anything about this country that even approaches the concept of socialism? to me, it looks like the exact opposite of socialism, if there is one. to me, it looks exactly like a plutocracy. this is maybe the best reason why your vote has no meaning.
We are being nudged in that direction. Obamacare, Food Stamps, Unemployment Checks. More and more people depending on the government. It's a slow process. If a certain group tried to make all these changes too quick the masses wouldn't go for it.
that's chicken feed. outside of what is discussed on foxnews, we are so far away from socialism that we'd never get there in 100 years. if anything, we are in the middle of some warped form of socialism that gives everything of significant from the government to the corporations which have now become basically the same thing. to think that the people have any control over anything of significance, which is a basic tenant of socialism, seems to completely ignore who has the wealth in this country, who controls this country and who owns the politicians.
0
that's chicken feed. outside of what is discussed on foxnews, we are so far away from socialism that we'd never get there in 100 years. if anything, we are in the middle of some warped form of socialism that gives everything of significant from the government to the corporations which have now become basically the same thing. to think that the people have any control over anything of significance, which is a basic tenant of socialism, seems to completely ignore who has the wealth in this country, who controls this country and who owns the politicians.
that's chicken feed. outside of what is discussed on foxnews, we are so far away from socialism that we'd never get there in 100 years. if anything, we are in the middle of some warped form of socialism that gives everything of significant from the government to the corporations which have now become basically the same thing. to think that the people have any control over anything of significance, which is a basic tenant of socialism, seems to completely ignore who has the wealth in this country, who controls this country and who owns the politicians.
Well said sir.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
that's chicken feed. outside of what is discussed on foxnews, we are so far away from socialism that we'd never get there in 100 years. if anything, we are in the middle of some warped form of socialism that gives everything of significant from the government to the corporations which have now become basically the same thing. to think that the people have any control over anything of significance, which is a basic tenant of socialism, seems to completely ignore who has the wealth in this country, who controls this country and who owns the politicians.
that's chicken feed. outside of what is discussed on foxnews, we are so far away from socialism that we'd never get there in 100 years. if anything, we are in the middle of some warped form of socialism that gives everything of significant from the government to the corporations which have now become basically the same thing. to think that the people have any control over anything of significance, which is a basic tenant of socialism, seems to completely ignore who has the wealth in this country, who controls this country and who owns the politicians.
This is the essence of our differences.
You are implying that by a corporation not paying their "fair share" in taxes the government is giving that corporation something.
Liberals assume it is the governments money and the government gives it to the people/corporations. I assume it is the people's money.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
that's chicken feed. outside of what is discussed on foxnews, we are so far away from socialism that we'd never get there in 100 years. if anything, we are in the middle of some warped form of socialism that gives everything of significant from the government to the corporations which have now become basically the same thing. to think that the people have any control over anything of significance, which is a basic tenant of socialism, seems to completely ignore who has the wealth in this country, who controls this country and who owns the politicians.
This is the essence of our differences.
You are implying that by a corporation not paying their "fair share" in taxes the government is giving that corporation something.
Liberals assume it is the governments money and the government gives it to the people/corporations. I assume it is the people's money.
You are implying that by a corporation not paying their "fair share" in taxes the government is giving that corporation something.
Liberals assume it is the governments money and the government gives it to the people/corporations. I assume it is the people's money.
that is one thing i;'m not implying but i'm saying. if you look at it on relative terms, if the government makes the people pay plenty in taxes but don't make the corporations pay much, if anything, then the government is giving the corporations something. whether you characterize it as the corporations money or the government's money is irrelevant if one groups has to pay it and one doesn't.
but taxes are just one part of the inequality problem. that graph didn't get like that just because of taxes.
of course, access is another issue. forget the president or even congress, look at how much money is spent on local elections. millions for small time positions. tell me how "the people" will ever get to buy those elected offices if they don't own the means to pay the fee.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
This is the essence of our differences.
You are implying that by a corporation not paying their "fair share" in taxes the government is giving that corporation something.
Liberals assume it is the governments money and the government gives it to the people/corporations. I assume it is the people's money.
that is one thing i;'m not implying but i'm saying. if you look at it on relative terms, if the government makes the people pay plenty in taxes but don't make the corporations pay much, if anything, then the government is giving the corporations something. whether you characterize it as the corporations money or the government's money is irrelevant if one groups has to pay it and one doesn't.
but taxes are just one part of the inequality problem. that graph didn't get like that just because of taxes.
of course, access is another issue. forget the president or even congress, look at how much money is spent on local elections. millions for small time positions. tell me how "the people" will ever get to buy those elected offices if they don't own the means to pay the fee.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
"Middle to Upper Class Republicans" thinking they are actual "Players in the Game"
Hot Forum Topics
