vsAnd who says that all rich people take advantage of everyone, ALL the time?
Who knows better than not to be evil, than the Devil?
. I just think it's about time that the old model of screw them all, as much as possible for market share, has to change. Our definition of success can't be purely based, on excess material wealth.
You said they were hypocrites, that isn't a misguided person?
And who says that all rich people take advantage of everyone, ALL the time?
I would say their opinion is more prominent and meaningful, than anyone else's, because of their status.
Who knows better than not to be evil, than the Devil?
I thought we were discussing the "rich guys" list that started with Buffet. None of them can legislate anything, they can only opinionate© just like we can. Nothing we discuss here becomes law because we suggest it. Neither does Mr. Buffet et al.
If I'm missing your point, please explain and I will read it carefully.
eace
That's B.S. It's about closing the wealth gap via wealth redistribution, primarily taxes on the wealthy, min wage, and salary caps.
The hypocrisy is what some point out as the absurdity. They pillaged our markets to earn billions. And by pillage I mean freely engaged with others who freely engaged in a marketplace that valued their contribution significantly. Now that they are ultra-wealthy, they sing a new tune. How convenient.
But the real absurdity IMO is that the market simply isn't valuing things the way some dreamy people believe it should. People don't' really want to take advantage of all our marketplace has to offer, all the amazing access to information and learning, ridiculously inexpensive education and the most prosperous economy in human history, in the universe. No, that's not good enough, they want their cake and eat it too. And liberals are here telling them that indeed, that's the way to reach their dreams, to take from others and just keep up with the mediocrity and their dreams will come to them.
You can want the wealth gap to be closed. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good dream, I'm being serious. But you can't force people to behave the way you want them to. You can't force a parent to raise their child with skills that our market values. They drink softdrinks and watch TV and absentee parent, and they live their own dream...much to your dismay. And you can't change that by INCENTIVIZING them, and anyone with sense can admit that.
A hypocrite is not necessarily 'misguided'. They could be very intentionally that way, giving lip service to what they think people want to hear, and many won't look past that to see that they aren't following through on their own level. A hypocrite is not necessarily someone who is just wealthy, it's someone who says one thing, and does another.
I notice you came in here to dump all over grip's well-meaning thread.Who the **** do you think you speak for?
vs
You just ****ing called them the Devil. Good gods man, why not label some of us on DP the devil also and make it personal.
Who the **** do you think you speak for? Who is using a model of "screw them all"? You? YOu are relating the wealthy to literally the Devil, I suspect if we just observe the facts you seem to be ready to burn "witches". Who measures their own life on excess material wealth? Who are these people that you presume to ****ing speak for?
Your argument is based on a fantasy in your head about things you actually know nothing about as evidenced in your opinion on the matter. You may as well keep appealing to authority as you do in the OP, it's the least offensive of your fallacies.
I notice you came in here to dump all over grip's well-meaning thread.
Maybe you should get a grip on your bashing and present your own ideas to take this Nation forward .
Couldn't disagree more. Taxes on the wealthy corporations are absurd the way they "dodge, shelter and get breaks". And a realistic, minimum wage increase would benefit everyone, eventually.
I'd like to see more middle class, not necessarily less wealthy people.
He's referring to the wealthy literally as the Devil. And as such he wants to raise their taxes. Maybe you think being forced to pay even more, for being what someone arbitrarily terms "the Devil", is well-meaning, and I would point out that it's inconsistent with the facts in the thread.
When I got to the Henry Ford example I knew we were confronted with absolute stinking bull****.
When I got to the Henry Ford example I knew we were confronted with absolute stinking bull****. Ford created the company store. His employees lived in his housing, brought from his stores, bought his vehicles. Any wages he paid them returned right to him. In fact he's the reason we're running vehicles on gasoline. The original diesels ran on peanut oil. Ford happenned to own a lot of oil stock. Got so his employees even bought gasoline from him.
He refined and locked in modern economic slavery.
Oh boy. Yet your next claim was these' Devil's, (Devil being a compliment according to you!), screw their employees. Maybe you meant that as a positive too!Why is the Devil so bad? Does he make anyone do things? Doesn't he work for God? Enlighten me, inquiring minds want to know?
Didn't Jesus call Judas the money lover, a devil? By biblical estimation, isn't every sinner is a devil at some point?
Next time you want to insult an entire group of people, just specifically personally attack me instead. It would be more...ethical. And if that makes you uncomfortable, considering holding your insults and rash generalizations in check, in favor of reasoned discourse.You took it too literally, my friend.
Oh boy. Yet your next claim was these' Devil's, (Devil being a compliment according to you!), screw their employees. Maybe you meant that as a positive too!
Next time you want to insult an entire group of people, just specifically personally attack me instead. It would be more...ethical. And if that makes you uncomfortable, considering holding your insults and rash generalizations in check, in favor of reasoned discourse.
opcorn2:
The best suggestions are made by example. None of these people are doing what they are suggesting, their lack of action speaks much louder than their words.
By the way the wealthy are not inherently smarter than the average bipedal hairless monkey.:mrgreen:
Last I checked, they're wanting to shape policy. Now if they're saying "rich should do xxx because it's the right thing to do", that's one thing. The way they're wording it, they want the government monopoly to throw its weight around.
Hello PriateMK1 - long time no see. Are you saying that these 5 men have not given massive donations to charity? I didn't say anything about their intelligence but they might be a little smarter than average. Or maybe just luckier.
They want to give some of their money back to the government to redistribute?
Um, Warren Buffet is a billion dollars behind on his taxes! :lamo
I hope he's not saying that! I gave a speech about a month ago on the merits of capitalism and one aspect of it was denoting how the wealthiest Americans - some of whom are mentioned in the OP - gave billions to charitable contributions just last year. These people do give, but they recognize that giving to charities will only help struggling families only so far. If it's a job that brings meaning to a person's life and a job that brings revenue to the government and reduces the rolls of those on social programs, then the wealth-class needs to feed the primary driver of capitalism - consumption. Pay higher salaries at least to the level where people can have a living wage and you take care of all sorts of problems in this country.
Of course, folks who are against this decree INFLATION! Got news for you, inflation's already upon us. It's just creeping up there very slowly.
In 2011, Berkshire-Hathaway was disputing a billion dollars in taxes. I can't determine how this resolved but I don't think that a company trying to fight their tax bill has much to do with an individual who donated 2.6 billion in 2013. He's not the only shareholder in B-H and demeaning him for this really isn't very logical. I'm sure you also know he has pledge 98% of his assets to charity upon his death, much to his children's dismay, no doubt.
Hello PriateMK1 - long time no see. Are you saying that these 5 men have not given massive donations to charity? I didn't say anything about their intelligence but they might be a little smarter than average. Or maybe just luckier.
So are you Sir, and so am I. What's wrong with that? Do they have less rights than we do?
These guys are counting on your naivety.
The main argument from the OP is "how to keep supply-side economics thriving"?
On the one hand, the U.S. is a capitalistic country. No doubt about it. This means that once an individual finds that magic formula to bring his product or service to that marketplace, is able to harnest the power of politics and/or the tax code in order to gain more wealth, the pure capitalist will take every advantage possible to bring about more wealth unto himself.
Problem: Once the majority of industry lay in the hands of a small few, it becomes increasingly difficult for others to jump into the market. Put simple: the big fish quickly gobble up the little fish either through out-pricing them or buying them out. But that's on the side of dwindling competition. Consumers are the bigger threat to perpetual profits.
What we've had take place in this country is two decades of union busting and off-shoring in order to keep labor cost down, and four decades of favorable (low) tax rates for the wealthy. The argument being so that companies can "keep more of what they earn and, thus, put more of their profits back into their business(es)". What entrepreneaur or small business owner wouldn't be in favor of these "cost-saving measures"?
Problem: When your economic policies are based on consumption (and debt) - supply-side economics - you need to ensure there are:
a) enough consumers to keep buying the products and services the marketplace provides, or,;
b) enough investors to take on your debt (bonds) or remain confident in the strength of your company (stocks).
Lose either and profits will fall. All Buffett, Unz, Hanauer, Silberstein and Hindery are saying is "if our capitalistic way of life is to continue, we either need to fulfill the tennants of 'trickle-down (supply-side) economics' or feed the welfare state and stop complaining about it."
Many people out there just don't get it, probably because they don't want to. I'm not suggesting that the wealthy need commit to altuism and give just because. There is a logical reason for raising the minimum wage in a capitalistic society. You simply cannot keep wages so low that it becomes increasing difficult for people to have their basic survival needs meet. The problem with the conservative mind-set is it makes a false argument. It lumps too many into the "lazy" category without acknowledging that there are many people out there who want to make a way for themselves and/or improve their way of life, but they simple can't because they struggle to have their basic survival needs met. These same people who condemn the poor fail to acknowledge that job/skills training does have a cost. A college education - even a training certificate or associates degree - cost! And if you're struggling to put food on the table, a roof overhead, keep the lights on, put gas in your car, or your losing work hours to stay home and care for a sick child or have no health insurance at all, chances are you'll never be able to afford the necessary skills training (college education) to move up from your present status in life.
Or course, some would then argue "work hard and move up the ranks". Easier said than done when those near retirement won't leave (or can't afford to retire themselves) AND your company isn't hiring/filling vacant positions OR just "right-sizing". Fact is, there are many problems with our national economy, but the best immediate corrective action all businesses can take to start turning things around is to pay their employees a higher salary (those deemed worthy enough anyway).
There's only so much the working poor can take. Moreover, the middle-class can only be squeezed so much. Eventually, people will rise up. It's just a matter of time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?