[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You are the one keeping class warfare on the front burner .
[/quote]
No, I just apply the lable you and Zepplin refuse to use when you speak it. [/quote]
Nonsense you just state there is a war being waged from the top , the middle and the bottom are slow to catch on
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans probably the last 10 times I have heard the term (CLASS WARFARE) was from you or Zeb . I contend if the is an actual war , it is waged from the Top [/quote]
I work with “rich” people everyday.
The only people whinying about the 1%, or is it .01% or Ultra-rich are politicians and their sheep. [/quote]
Yeah right! The politicians are sucking their dicks!
[/quote]
Assume this is true for a second:
Your solution is to give the government more power.
how on Earth does that solve anything?[/quote]
TRUTH
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans probably the last 10 times I have heard the term (CLASS WARFARE) was from you or Zeb . I contend if the is an actual war , it is waged from the Top [/quote]
I work with “rich” people everyday.
The only people whinying about the 1%, or is it .01% or Ultra-rich are politicians and their sheep. [/quote]
Yeah right! The politicians are sucking their dicks!
[/quote]
Assume this is true for a second:
Your solution is to give the government more power.
how on Earth does that solve anything?[/quote]
More regulations. More laws. Such as Glass-Stegall Act.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
http://upge.wn.com/?t=ancientgreece/index2.txt[/quote]
By that standard, the American poor have nothing to complain about.
They make more than 80% of all people worldwide, historically speaking they live better than most kings ever did.
But that is not how people are wired, the will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.
There is a word for that attitude, I believe it is called envy.[/quote]
Why complain when you have to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector?
The top .01% have made so much of the gains yet want there taxes cut and social spending deflated. There is a word for that it’s called GREED[/quote]
Sure, but the gubbamint has about 6 or 7 dozens agencies to watch over them which pretty much prevented nothing.
I would argue that they make it easier, they provide a fig leaf for when it is needed.
I would rather have them gone broke, like they would have, on a free market.
[/quote]
I agree they should have gone broke. However, this goes to show you how they actually run the show. More laws need to be in place to curb their risky behavior. Not deregulation which they push for so they can engage in this type of activity. Not to mention these finance corporations are the same assholes who will defend their belief in the “free market” when they don’t believe in anything but monopolies. Plus they want to cut the social safety net that people depend on to live all the while taking government handouts to be paid for by the tax payer. A fucking disgrace![/quote]
nonono…
Not more regulation.
Infact, remove all of it.
Let them lose their houses, let their wives divorce them, let them live on the streets if they fuck up.
In short, let their greed be held in check the old fashioned way…by fear. [/quote]
Funny but none of this happened when laws like Glass-Stegall et al. where enforced. Less regulation means more thievery by those who own the politicians. 2008 was a perfect example!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]
lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.
The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.
Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]
For you to actually believe this is sustainable just highlights your ignorance.
[/quote]
Please point out a time in human history where there weren’t “have’s” and “have nots”. DOn’t worry, I’ll wait. [/quote]
Please point out a time in our country where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” have been this drastic. Oh wait I’ll help you, it was called the Great Depression.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]
lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.
The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.
Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]
For you to actually believe this is sustainable just highlights your ignorance.
[/quote]
Please point out a time in human history where there weren’t “have’s” and “have nots”. DOn’t worry, I’ll wait. [/quote]
Please point out a time in our country where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” have been this drastic. Oh wait I’ll help you, it was called the Great Depression.[/quote]
I’m in the middle of the chapter on this.
I suggest you get reading. But while I’m waiting for you to get through it, care to back that statement up with an figures that aren’t from lefty think tanks?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Yeah right! The politicians are sucking their dicks!
[/quote]
Assume this is true for a second:
Your solution is to give the government more power.
how on Earth does that solve anything?[/quote]
More regulations. More laws. Such as Glass-Stegall Act.[/quote]
Then you write:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Less regulation means more thievery by those who own the politicians.
[/quote]
You mean to tell me, you don’t see where your logic train has clear run off the tracks and is just sitting in the mud?
Your logic is like the recycle symbol:
“politicians make policy that favors the rich, because the rich buy them to make policy that favors the rich, so we should give the politicians more power to make more laws to favor the rich more, so the rich can buy more politicians so they can make laws that favor the rich more, so lets give the politicians even more power to make laws that favor the rich even more, so the rich buy politicians to make laws that favor them even more.”
You idea of fixing the problem is more and more laws, which you already said are made by people “sucking the dick” or “owed by the rich”. More laws? More rules? More restrictions? More government control over our lives? More 1,500 page bills that no one reads, more convoluted rules and figures no one understands, more bureaucracy, more hoops to jump through, more limits, more control? This is your idea of good? Move to Europe, Cuba, North Korea or California and Bloomburg’s NYC.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]
lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.
The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.
Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]
For you to actually believe this is sustainable just highlights your ignorance.
[/quote]
Please point out a time in human history where there weren’t “have’s” and “have nots”. DOn’t worry, I’ll wait. [/quote]
Please point out a time in our country where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” have been this drastic. Oh wait I’ll help you, it was called the Great Depression.[/quote]
I’m in the middle of the chapter on this.
I suggest you get reading. But while I’m waiting for you to get through it, care to back that statement up with an figures that aren’t from lefty think tanks?[/quote]
Lol at the notion that anything from "Thomas Sewell " will have a remotely close to honest analysis of any statistic.
A Republican could take a shit in a hallway and Thomas Sewell would pat him on the back for giving the poor bastard that had to clean it up a job…
Can we get something from a less biased source?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]
lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.
The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.
Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]
For you to actually believe this is sustainable just highlights your ignorance.
[/quote]
Please point out a time in human history where there weren’t “have’s” and “have nots”. DOn’t worry, I’ll wait. [/quote]
Please point out a time in our country where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” have been this drastic. Oh wait I’ll help you, it was called the Great Depression.[/quote]
I’m in the middle of the chapter on this.
I suggest you get reading. But while I’m waiting for you to get through it, care to back that statement up with an figures that aren’t from lefty think tanks?[/quote]
Lol at the notion that anything from "Thomas Sewell " will have a remotely close to honest analysis of any statistic.
A Republican could take a shit in a hallway and Thomas Sewell would pat him on the back for giving the poor bastard that had to clean it up a job…
Can we get something from a less biased source?
[/quote]
Read the book, and you realize how out of touch this statement is.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]
lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.
The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.
Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]
For you to actually believe this is sustainable just highlights your ignorance.
[/quote]
Please point out a time in human history where there weren’t “have’s” and “have nots”. DOn’t worry, I’ll wait. [/quote]
Please point out a time in our country where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” have been this drastic. Oh wait I’ll help you, it was called the Great Depression.[/quote]
I’m in the middle of the chapter on this.
I suggest you get reading. But while I’m waiting for you to get through it, care to back that statement up with an figures that aren’t from lefty think tanks?[/quote]
Lol at the notion that anything from "Thomas Sewell " will have a remotely close to honest analysis of any statistic.
A Republican could take a shit in a hallway and Thomas Sewell would pat him on the back for giving the poor bastard that had to clean it up a job…
Can we get something from a less biased source?
[/quote]
Read the book, and you realize how out of touch this statement is. [/quote]
Just fucking with you 
I am presently reading Undaunted Courage , about Louis and Clark
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just fucking with you
[/quote]
He is actually pretty good. He doesn’t play partisian even though he is a “conservative” based on economic views and data analysis.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the problem is not that we live beyond our means but that we live beyond the means of our grand children.
And by the way, this would still be a problem if “the economy” returned to a two-digit growth tommorow.
maybe not an economical problem. But a moral one. [/quote]
You must be talking about the 1%[/quote]
No.
I was actually talking about us, the 99% of producers and consumers.
You could tax “the 1%” to death, spread or even destroy their wealth, as long as we continue to produce and consume without any long-term concern, it won’t change anything.
[/quote]
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
They had no constitution as such, no law against it, but they never did.
I think that shows that a constitution is no match for moral fiber. [/quote]
The average worker in the Athenian democracy was relatively rich. “At its economic height, in the 4th century BC, Ancient Greece was the most advanced economy in the world. According to some economic historians, it was one of the most advanced preindustrial economies. This is demonstrated by the average daily wage of the Greek worker, it was, in terms of wheat (about 12 kg), more than 3 times the average daily wage of the Romano-Egyptian worker during the Roman period (about 3.75 kg).”
http://upge.wn.com/?t=ancientgreece/index2.txt[/quote]
By that standard, the American poor have nothing to complain about.
They make more than 80% of all people worldwide, historically speaking they live better than most kings ever did.
But that is not how people are wired, the will not accept a system that has lifted billions out of poverty if the differences in wealth are to great, because they do not think in absolute but in relative terms.
There is a word for that attitude, I believe it is called envy.[/quote]
Why complain when you have to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector?
The top .01% have made so much of the gains yet want there taxes cut and social spending deflated. There is a word for that it’s called GREED[/quote]
Sure, but the gubbamint has about 6 or 7 dozens agencies to watch over them which pretty much prevented nothing.
I would argue that they make it easier, they provide a fig leaf for when it is needed.
I would rather have them gone broke, like they would have, on a free market.
[/quote]
I agree they should have gone broke. However, this goes to show you how they actually run the show. More laws need to be in place to curb their risky behavior. Not deregulation which they push for so they can engage in this type of activity. Not to mention these finance corporations are the same assholes who will defend their belief in the “free market” when they don’t believe in anything but monopolies. Plus they want to cut the social safety net that people depend on to live all the while taking government handouts to be paid for by the tax payer. A fucking disgrace![/quote]
nonono…
Not more regulation.
Infact, remove all of it.
Let them lose their houses, let their wives divorce them, let them live on the streets if they fuck up.
In short, let their greed be held in check the old fashioned way…by fear. [/quote]
Funny but none of this happened when laws like Glass-Stegall et al. where enforced. Less regulation means more thievery by those who own the politicians. 2008 was a perfect example!
[/quote]
Sure, but “owning politicians” only makes sense if they have something to sell.
My solution to this is that they have nothing to sell.
The solution for most people is to make sure to “vote the right people in”, being unable to grasp that anyone that makes their way to the top of the political machine is necessarily hopelessly corrupted.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sure, but “owning politicians” only makes sense if they have something to sell.
My solution to this is that they have nothing to sell.
The solution for most people is to make sure to “vote the right people in”, being unable to grasp that anyone that makes their way to the top of the political machine is necessarily hopelessly corrupted. [/quote]
This is a brilliant post, and will either be ignored or, more likely, not understood by those that need to hear it.
<3 U
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Sure, but “owning politicians” only makes sense if they have something to sell.
My solution to this is that they have nothing to sell.
The solution for most people is to make sure to “vote the right people in”, being unable to grasp that anyone that makes their way to the top of the political machine is necessarily hopelessly corrupted. [/quote]
This is a brilliant post, and will either be ignored or, more likely, not understood by those that need to hear it.
<3 U[/quote]
Full homo?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Sure, but “owning politicians” only makes sense if they have something to sell.
My solution to this is that they have nothing to sell.
The solution for most people is to make sure to “vote the right people in”, being unable to grasp that anyone that makes their way to the top of the political machine is necessarily hopelessly corrupted. [/quote]
This is a brilliant post, and will either be ignored or, more likely, not understood by those that need to hear it.
<3 U[/quote]
Full homo?[/quote]
Troof, good post O
[quote]orion wrote:
The solution for most people is to make sure to “vote the right people in”, being unable to grasp that anyone that makes their way to the top of the political machine is necessarily hopelessly corrupted. [/quote]
By God. We actually agree on something.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
The solution for most people is to make sure to “vote the right people in”, being unable to grasp that anyone that makes their way to the top of the political machine is necessarily hopelessly corrupted. [/quote]
By God. We actually agree on something.[/quote]
Isnt that a relief.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The whole scheme of the top 1% making those type of gains while the bottom flat lines is non sustainable [/quote]
lol, the whole of human history says otherwise.
The whole of human history also says you and your friend Zep have the reasoning skills of a peasant from 2000BC that can’t read.
Class Warfare rhetoric baby, government keeping the masses in line since the dawn of civilization. More effective than bullets, because they willingly accept this bullshit as true, and spread it themselves. [/quote]
For you to actually believe this is sustainable just highlights your ignorance.
[/quote]
Please point out a time in human history where there weren’t “have’s” and “have nots”. DOn’t worry, I’ll wait. [/quote]
Please point out a time in our country where the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” have been this drastic. Oh wait I’ll help you, it was called the Great Depression.[/quote]
I’m in the middle of the chapter on this.
I suggest you get reading. But while I’m waiting for you to get through it, care to back that statement up with an figures that aren’t from lefty think tanks?[/quote]
And why don’t you quote figures and points of view that aren’t from corporate think tanks?
[quote]orion wrote:
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Did you know that the Athenian Democracy, as far as I know never, but who knows, voted to seize the property of the “rich” in order to enrich themselves?
[/quote]
Depends when you mean and what you mean by ‘voted’ exactly. For example, the Athenians voted Peistratus his own citizen bodyguard armed with clubs after he staged an attempt on his own life. And surprise, surprise! He seized the Acropolis with his bodyguard and established himself as dictator.
Athens was a direct democracy not a representative democracy. After the Solon reforms Athenian men voted on everything - ship building, taxes, foreign policy, public works etc.
The period of the three tyrants known as the Peisistratids was one of radical egalitarianism, socialism and mob rule leading to popular tyrants/demagogues, the robbing/exiling of the aristocracy, the breaking up of the aristocratic estates and the abolition of debt bondage.
Solon, the Peistratids and the Athenian mob broke up the class structure completely. After the deposing of Hippias, Cleisthenes reorganised the social structure into ten artificial tribes. Opposed by the remnants of the aristocratic faction, Cleisthenes granted more power to the Assembly. It was during this period that the Areopagus(kind of a high court of aristocrats) was disenfranchised and overtaken by a bizarre kind of lottery system that directly elected citizens to the judiciary. There were many little reigns of terror where lower class Athenians in the judiciary and in other public offices launched vexatious litigations and basically robbed and exiled(ostracised) the aristocrats. You know, spreading the wealth around and so on.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
And why don’t you quote figures and points of view that aren’t from corporate think tanks?
[/quote]
As anyone could have guessed by now, you can’t back your asertions up with any sort of fact or figure.
Shocking, I know.
I didn’t make a claim to wealth distribution, what do I have to back up?