Breitbart: We have the guns...

AspenValley wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: AV, I hope your preparedness is really good, because in a few years when there aren't many wealthy to work for, the hungry hoards may be at our doorsteps.

You know, it's funny, but most Republicans long for the "good old days", say the 1950s, and do you know what? No one was kissing the butts of billionaires thinking that was going to keep them in a job. The amount of wealth that has been transferred upwards since then is UNIMAGINABLE. Why don't you guys get it? America workers have never been more productive, they have gotten more and more productive every decade since WWII, but in the past three decades, virtually ALL of the financial benefit of that productivity has gone to the upper 1/10 of 1%.

THAT is what is going to cause the hungry hordes to be at your door, when the billionaires have finally succeeded (with your help) in safely offshoring not only all the jobs but all their money and the good old U.S of A is left to become Zimbabwe.

And if you aren't in the billionaire class, don't kid yourself that all your butt kissing is going to convince them to let YOU on their luxury yacht sailing off into the sunset.

Why don't you do a little research and find out what the top marginal tax rate was back in those "good old days" when people actually had good jobs and you didn't need two breadwinners just to keep a roof over your head.

The good old days of the 1950's when we were the most technologically advanced and our economic rivals had been destroyed by war and nuclear fallout? Easy them to keep wages for factory workers at high levels because hardly anyone else was competition for us. Now even the lowly Chicoms are expanding their economy at breakneck speed and I don't think there is anything either a Dem or Republican can do to deny the new market economy.
(Unless the CIA could create a nuclear exchange between China and India.)

And 1950's was prosperous? To me it seems like the homes were much smaller, more people were starving than obese, and the social welfare system was much more rudimentary, more a local than a national plan. Food was a bigger percentage of income than nowdays.

Nmysys wrote:

The amount of wealth that has been transferred upwards since then is UNIMAGINABLE.

It is difficult to have a discussion with someone who thinks wealth was transferred. It was earned, as the result of providing the jobs for these extremely productive workers you refer to. BTW, I dispute that logic, as well. The Unions have IMO caused that productivity to go down, which has had the effect of Corporations, Industries, Jobs, etc. to leave the country. Over regulating, taxation, things like that have caused the problems, but you want what DOESN'T belong to you. No matter how much you covet it, and elect Left leaning ideologues, it is not getting you to get your fair share of anything. It won't go to you, but to the government to SPEND the way they want to.

BTW, since you added it, RACE is not the factor. It would be a war between those who want what others have and are not willing to earn it, and those who think you and the whole Fu***** government needs to stay out of our lives. You can tout Race all you like, but it absolutely doesn't mean a damn thing to us since we know Race has no part in it. I, personally would vote for Herman Cain, whether you can understand that is not my problem. Where the hell does race come in to play.

I am not "touting" race. Just do a google search of "left pushing for civil war" and you will find dozens of references on right-wing blogs to race war. Just because you deny it in mixed company is meaningless.

As for wealth transfer, may I ask you a few questions? What is wealth? Wealth is the creation of something valuable, is it not? And who exactly creates wealth? Is it not a partnership between the employer who finances the means of production and the employee who actually creates the product? If the employer cannot create the product without the labor of the employee, no wealth will be created without the employee, is that not so?

Now we get into the issue of how much of that wealth that is created ends up in whose hands. In the past 30 years, employers have been squeezing employees harder and harder for more production while rewarding them with stagnant or declining shares of the proceeds of that production. A larger and larger share of the wealth that is being co-created by employee and employer is going to the employer. THAT is what I am referring to when I talk about wealth being transferred upwards.

It has led to vast inequalities in this country, and sooner or later, that is going to have consequences. Again, you can choose to ignore that fact or dismiss it, but it won't stop the consequences.

AspenValley wrote: Why don't you do a little research and find out what the top marginal tax rate was back in those "good old days" when people actually had good jobs and you didn't need two breadwinners just to keep a roof over your head.

Do a little more research and tell us how much of the federal budget was being spent on the individual welfare of each citizen and what the privilege to be employed/have employee taxes were at that time. Tell us what your research shows happened to the pension plans from companies once those privilege taxes were quadrupled to fund two major social engineering programs that were bottomed on a Ponzi foundation of having the current investors pay for the benefits of earlier investors. The reason we need two breadwinners today centers around the massive inflation that resulted from the last time the Democrats had control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government and ran the country according to the principles of Keynesian economics and a massive expansion of the welfare state. The unsustainable level of spending it created resulted in countries asking that their Treasuries be paid back in gold instead of USD, which meant that either the US had to abandon any pretension of its currency being tied to specie or have all of our specie be used to pay off the debts that the social experiment created.

I had to run out and run to Conifer and happened to listen to Rush Limbaugh for the drive. Rush came up with a great plan of his own to counter this so called Buffett plan. He said that since the policies of the left have been the cause of this economy, and not those of the super rich that this class envy, therefore potential class warfare is going on, why not put the blame for this Spend, Spend, Spend policy that has caused it by taxing the Democrats. Tax those who voted for Democrats. Doesn't seem fair, does it? The super rich haven't caused this economy. They have paid more than their FAIR SHARE of the taxation. Tax the Democrats who are for this. Good idea.

No matter which of these ideas you like, neither is fair. Taxation isn't going to create more jobs. But it is effective as a political tool, because all of the Left think so.

Look at Greece today. They have defaulted on their debt. Why? Because they gave entitlements under Socialism and even when they threatened to take back some of them, or reduce them, the people rioted. This happened just months ago. Socialism doesn't work. But, the Left wants it.
If it isn't Socialism that you on the left want, then the only answer brings us back to you admitting that the label is Communism. Which is it?

I left something out of my last post. Let's see. What was it? Oh yeah, it was the name of his plan. Instead of the Buffett plan, this one was more aptly named. Since the logo of the Democratic Party is the Donkey, he suggested that this tax plan can be called the Jackass Tax Plan.

News headline "Dog eats $49,000.00 inheritance checks" and passes the Presidents jobs bill.

Nmysys wrote: If it isn't Socialism that you on the left want, then the only answer brings us back to you admitting that the label is Communism. Which is it?

Your "logic" leaves much to be desired. Should we start calling the right "fascist?" After all, on this forum board, evidence need not be presented.

Kate, we're immune since many posters here have used that and many other slurs.

Okay - so the shock-jock neo-cons might have the guns..... From what I've seen --- your average neo-con gun nut doesn't have much aim......
(consider Dick Cheney, for example.....)

Then, there's Pamela Gorman ---- conservative christian - and a pretty good shot
Rated 100% by the NRA (which rates politics --- not aim)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA

HEARTLESS wrote: If math isn't your strong suit, it was 2010 Wayne, two years ago.

:rofl