Really?
Remember, we're not talking about America. We're talking about the world. The theme is that the 1% of the wealthiest will own more than half of the world's wealth, not the US wealth.
Just how is the world economy set up?
typical attitude of a big government statist. Unless you are willing to pay as much taxes as I currently do, your silly rants have no merit or honesty. Your attitude is parasitic and this crap that its ok to tax people who are more productive and industrious than you are to the point that they have a few more bucks than the 47% who suck on the public tit is disgusting
I see you have not addressed the fact that my comment was dishonestly misquoted
your wasting your time.
they see it as not fair that you worked saved and invested carried low debt or no debt and worked to be successful to where you got.
all they can see is that you somehow cheated someone else out of their due and that you should be forced to pay simply because you got lucky
it had nothing to do with your skill or knowledge or drive to work it was all luck.
It's not what you have. Lots of people are rich. My oldest brother married into a very well to do family, but we don't hear them talking about how much better they have it. It's how you brag about your wealth and accomplishments that is sickening.
It's not what you have. Lots of people are rich. My oldest brother married into a very well to do family, but we don't hear them talking about how much better they have it. It's how you brag about your wealth and accomplishments that is sickening.
That, and the fact that some people believe that there inheritance is an "accomplishment", as if they did something to earn it.
ah Poor thing. I am sorry the some place, some where I posted something that accentuated your feelings of envy. Its a piss poor argument to support confiscatory statist policies because someone made you feel bad about your own failings
Why do you feel the need to continually mention your accomplishments? Do you suffer from an inferiority complex? Do you need to feel superior?
So, quantitative easing, is that what you're referring to? Is that what the real difference is between those places you mention where people are generally either very wealthy or very poor?like America other place have their banking system that can expand their money supply as needed based on economic demand.
Constantly is a bit hyperbolic but it fun watching a few whine and caterwaul
and when people who are net tax consumers constantly whine about the rich and bleat that the rich should pay more and more, I have a right to counter that crap.
OK. You're convinced that Obama engaged in crony capitalism and no amount of explanation to the contrary is going to change your mind so I leave you to your opinion on that. But...... gotta say.... if a little odd to argue that it was necessary AND it was crony capitalism. Crony capitalism, by it's very "meme" indicates that it wasn't necessary but gratuitous. But nevermind. I've got work to do.
Constantly is a bit hyperbolic but it fun watching a few whine and caterwaul
and when people who are net tax consumers constantly whine about the rich and bleat that the rich should pay more and more, I have a right to counter that crap.
That, and the fact that some people believe that there inheritance is an "accomplishment", as if they did something to earn it.
So, quantitative easing, is that what you're referring to? Is that what the real difference is between those places you mention where people are generally either very wealthy or very poor?
Of course they all did - Bush II, Obama, Congress, both parties. It's in the historical record, so not really an "opinion" - just what happened. Every history written of the era will accept this as self evident. So you're right - no amount of "explanation" that is contradicted by the record will convince me.
And crony capitalism just means success or failure depends on relationships with government, with government picking winners and losers. That clearly was the case during the crisis - as you said, 100s of smaller banks were allowed to fail, some huge financial institutions were allowed to fail, but we spent/loaned/guaranteed $TRILLIONS to save some of the biggest players.
No you don't. The first amendment is only for liberals. Any attempt to refute their silly-assed drivel has them swarming to shout you down.
Your President sure did.J-mac, it's useless talking to you because you just make up **** that other people say. Every post is a giant straw man.
Learn how to debate. It's annoying. And I never said "try it".
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. IE they didn't inherit it. they earned it.
Like I said. You can't argue assert that the bailouts were necessary and then assert that it was crony capitalism, too. One or the other. If your motive is to save yourself, then saying it was really because you were doing someone else a favor is just dishonest. But I see there's no reasoning with you so go ahead and get your requisite last word in, whatever it may be. Cheers.
So what? I didn't say anything about 80% of millionaires.
I am still befuddled by those who believe that inheritance is a merit based accomplishment.
Now that is an awesome example of irony right there.
Still trying to use reason in this discussion, are you? Well, good luck with that, LOL.
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?