Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

reply to post by beezzer



noun: envy
1. a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck.


noun: greed
1. intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.



322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his/her use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;



Mass redistribution of wealth: Definition

Envious Greed, the feeling thereof causing one to attempt to legalize theft.


James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure of federal aid explaining,

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. .... Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood

poet1b

Looks like a lot of people who didn't like the super bowl, worship wealth, think the rich should be above the law, and see greed as a virtue.

Talk about getting whupped.

Ouch.

Greed is a virtue.

People wouldnt innovate if they didnt envision getting wealthy off of their ideas and inventions.

poet1b

Looks like a lot of people who didn't like the super bowl, worship wealth, think the rich should be above the law, and see greed as a virtue.

Talk about getting whupped.

Ouch.

I find it a little odd how this account pops up every time spiritualzombie get criticised by EVERYONE else.

Absolutely none of us think the rich you should be above the law, zombie/poet. None of us said that at any time. Not once.

I know someone who argues like you, he has a mild schizophrenic disorder. Whenever he's challenged changes the subject, won't accept information that contradicts him (even when shown it in black and white) and constantly shifts goalposts. He also claims people have said things they haven't

Please dig up an example of when one of us said the rich should be above the law.

Take a hint, multiple people have tried patiently to explain to you that....

A: the wealth redistribution thing has been tried and didn't work the last few times.
B: that just because someone disagrees with you or wants things you don't with you doesn't mean they are mentally ill or evil.
C: that you aren't being coherent
D: the wealthy have generally worked their asses off to get there.

If you really want to see a corrupt political system you should study what happened in the 'wealth redistributing' communist states in the post war period. The reason we are all telling you 'it doesn't work' is because we've seen how appalling poor and dangerous to their citizens the communist states were. No-one had any freedom, someone was always looking at your life to tell you what to think and do, or else. We've seen the alternative to capitalism, it's totalitarianism and everyone being in poverty. Even the poor in Europe and America had better standards of living than them.

You haven't whupped anything.

doubletap

Greed is a virtue.

People wouldnt innovate if they didnt envision getting wealthy off of their ideas and inventions.

Correction; self-greed is a virtue. It would be more correctly called PRIDE or SELF-RESPECT, in this case.

I'll try to sum this up with one post....

Thesaneone: You want me to give you a measure of greed or stick to one definition. First, what I originally said about greed is that it may destroy the world if allowed. Greed is different for everyone, but if you NEED a definition, then I'll give you two to choose from. Choose whichever you like:

Greed:
1. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
2. One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. Proverbs 11:24.

I’m not religious, but some people are, so go with which ever definition helps you personally understand the concept of greed. If you think this is a mental illness of mine and that I somehow “feel mightier than others”, then I have just one question for you? Are you “mightier than others”, because you call yourself “The Sane One”?


Eriktheawful: It’s not about who gets to decide “how much is more than one needs”…this topic has been and will continue to be about how rich folks have bought our government and this should be something everyone is worried about, but for some reason we’ve come to just accept it. I say it’s because these folks are greedy and just can’t seem to have enough. I’m simply pointing out what I think the cause is, because what else can it be? Okay…specific examples might help. Koch Brothers and Monsanto…money buying politics. I’m simply getting down to the basics…greed. With all the money these guys already have, what else is their driving force but greed…the desire for more money and more power.


Ketsuko: Enough with your psychological analysis of me. The only cognitive dissonance you’ll find here is that my post has rattled a lot of people. I hold a single view and that hasn’t changed…greed is bad. I’m not “claiming” that people are buying our government…They ARE. You keep rattling off with “cognitive dissonance” as your “diagnosis”, but in reality, you couldn’t be farther from the truth.


Diggindirt: I’m neither 12 years old nor am I a 3-year old, but do you need me to explain it to you the way a 12-year old or maybe even a 3-year old would say it? Okay, how's this: People who buy laws are bad…

I applaud you for reading EVERY post closely and feel sorry for you at the same time. This means you’ve also read every single diversion and have fallen far and away from what I’ve originally talked about and for seeing me try to respond to every ridiculous question out there. You want a plan of action…guess what? This is a discussion board…a thread…a topic to be discussed. I've already said what I think. I’ve had to “explain” myself over and over and over enough times that it would make even the most patient person tired. As for your assumptions of me in your fine essay, I will just point out that I simply gave an example of a game of monopoly with my sister when we were CHILDREN… how far you take that is simply a problem with YOU. I’m not dancing around this subject. I’ve been clear… there are plenty of rich people (other than your Oprah), who are greedy and will pay lots of money to buy laws (e.g. Koch Brothers, Monsanto). Truly, I “hope and pray” that YOU learn to stop making such grandiose assumptions about people. It’s not very adult of you. Oh and thank you so much for advice. I don’t watch much TV, but I might have to turn it on to see what’s going on with Oprah these days since you seem to be so obsessed with her. I’ll try to donate even more money and even more of my time, because YOU asked me so nicely. Thanks for that.

Doubletap: Yeah…yeah…okay...”closed minded”…”worst possible idea”…”extremely limited knowledge of economics”…I “sound envious and want something for nothing”…because, as you say I have a “very typical mindset of losers and parasites”…Oh and my favorite…according to you, I’m ”mentally ill” as well. Tell me something I haven’t already heard on this board.

As for your question about the Constitution authorizing such "retarded" behavior as a "redistribution of wealth"… Let's examine...

"Redistribution of Wealth"

Every time legislation is proposed to expire tax cuts for the rich or raise minimum wage, people on the right scream "Redistribution of Wealth". So, in saying I vote for redistribution, that is what I am referring to. Of course there would NEVER be a vote to redistribute all money of the top 1%. That's ridiculous.

Furthermore, general massive redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional. But let's look at this from a different perspective: The 2009 bailouts could easily be considered an "upward" mass redistribution of wealth. They took OUR taxes to the sum of $7 trillion dollars and redistributed it to bail out individuals who then used that money to pay executives ridiculous bonuses. There's something fundamentally wrong with our government if these folks are able to get away with being bailed out and come out on top and we're stuck footing the bill.

Regardless, I have been very clear in my support of letting tax cuts expire, raising minimum wage, and getting money out of politics. I've also spoken against the massive greed that has taken hold of our government. There are people intentionally manipulating public to support their greed, to give themselves an unfair advantage over We The People, and that needs to stop.

Lastly, if any of you disagree with me, that's fine, but I don't think it helps your argument to call me retarded, a child, or mentally ill for expressing my views.

spiritualzombie
Lastly, if any of you disagree with me, that's fine, but I don't think it helps your argument to call me retarded, a child, or mentally ill for expressing my views.

But when you call people mentally ill it's okay?

It must be lonely up there all by yourself.

Please give me some free money, also.
Thank you.

reply to post by doubletap


Most of the great innovators, the people who made enormous contributions to society were not motivate by greed, but a desire to accomplish great things.

The list of great innovators is a completely different list from that of histories most wealthy.

The innovators were typically excellent people.

While the most wealthy were often very horrible people, tyrants and despots, driven by greed and all other manner of vices.

I suggest you study some history, and stop listening to right wing talk show radio hosts.

poet1b
reply to post by doubletap

 

Most of the great innovators, the people who made enormous contributions to society were not motivate by greed, but a desire to accomplish great things.

The list of great innovators is a completely different list from that of histories most wealthy.

The innovators were typically excellent people.

While the most wealthy were often very horrible people, tyrants and despots, driven by greed and all other manner of vices.

I suggest you study some history, and stop listening to right wing talk show radio hosts.

And their innovations reached the populaiton via the big businesses who were motivated by profit.

Also, take a look through the a list of victorian inventors and spot that a great many well known names manufactured their own invention at a great profit, and a couple were well paid specialists, like Brunel.

In fact, industry is a major source of innovation, for new products and to lower production costs of existing product.


I suggest you start studying history, and stop spouting commnist bs.

reply to post by Antigod


Here is the post you keep defending, all the while trying to pretend what is being said was something completely different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

beezzer
spiritualzombie
reply to post by poet1b

SZs original statement

The top 1% are supporting the top .0001%. The mindsets of the top 1% are a problem. They should be scared to support the top .0001% for fear of having their assets taken for supporting financial terrorism, fraud, intentionally misleading public through multiple news outlets.

Something needs to happen to make the 1% wake up to the damage and corruption and start distancing themselves from the .0001% intent on controlling the country through corrupt practices.

Losing all their money would scare the F out of them. Especially if they started seeing it happen.

Depending on the crime, death penalty could be put on the table for financial terrorism... Such as participating in a plot to intentionally tank the U.S. economy and hold the country hostage with a ransom set in the trillions.

beezzer's response

LOLZ

Took a while, but there it is.

Kill the rich. Take their money.

SZ specifically states "Depending on the crime, death penalty could be put on the table for financial terrorism."

Not "kill the rich" as beezzer claims.

You then go on to back beezzer, ignoring the gross distortion, defending the super rich on almost every post while never admitting that the super rich commit horrendous crimes.

I suspect you are in such total denial, that you don't see your own bias.

reply to post by poet1b



Lets see,

Swan - Edison (lightbulbs)
Dunlop ( Tyres)
Crapper (flushing toilet)
Parkes (father of plastics)
A whole lot of older brands of medicines and foods were marketed by their inventors for personal gain (Birds custard powder, safety matches, etc)
Perkin (mauve sythetic dye- made him a rich man)
Melita bentz (filter coffee)


Basically once you get into the industrial era innovation has mainly been for profit, although of course medicine has always had Dr's driven to find cures working for the greater good.

reply to post by Antigod


The big businesses you worship mainly stole the tech, and monopolized the markets.

We would be better off with out them. You know nothing of history. Read up on Rockefeller and JP Morgan.

You are the one who supports corporate communism, and you don't even know it.

Markets do not need corporations, and corporations are certainly no fan of competitive markets.

reply to post by Antigod


Read what JP Morgan did to Edison.

Then maybe you can start to open your eyes.

reply to post by poet1b


Split hairs much?

Twist it anyway you want. . .

Scare the 1%, death penalty to the 01%

The central theme is, you folks aren't happy with people having wealth.

"Time for a mass redistribution of wealth". Isn't that the name of the thread?

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

Here is the post you keep defending, all the while trying to pretend what is being said was something completely different.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

beezzer
spiritualzombie
reply to post by poet1b

SZs original statement

The top 1% are supporting the top .0001%. The mindsets of the top 1% are a problem. They should be scared to support the top .0001% for fear of having their assets taken for supporting financial terrorism, fraud, intentionally misleading public through multiple news outlets.

Something needs to happen to make the 1% wake up to the damage and corruption and start distancing themselves from the .0001% intent on controlling the country through corrupt practices.

Losing all their money would scare the F out of them. Especially if they started seeing it happen.

Depending on the crime, death penalty could be put on the table for financial terrorism... Such as participating in a plot to intentionally tank the U.S. economy and hold the country hostage with a ransom set in the trillions.

beezzer's response

LOLZ

Took a while, but there it is.

Kill the rich. Take their money.

SZ specifically states "Depending on the crime, death penalty could be put on the table for financial terrorism."

Not "kill the rich" as beezzer claims.

You then go on to back beezzer, ignoring the gross distortion, defending the super rich on almost every post while never admitting that the super rich commit horrendous crimes.

I suspect you are in such total denial, that you don't see your own bias.

edit on 3-2-2014 by poet1b because: formatting

edit on 3-2-2014 by poet1b because: formatting

edit on 3-2-2014 by poet1b because: formatting

edit on 3-2-2014 by poet1b because: formatting

Wow, you are REALLY hot to defend SZ aren't you?

What post I've been defending? I'm sorry, I just agreed with Beezer when he said you (whoops sorry, SZ) came across as a bit kill the rich. I'm not sure why you are so obsessed on it

you posted...

"My suggestion for punishment is to drain them off all their money, possibly prison, and if found guilty of treason, death penalty on the table."

Sorry, SZ posted. Easy to confuse you two.

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

The big businesses you worship mainly stole the tech, and monopolized the markets.

We would be better off with out them. You know nothing of history. Read up on Rockefeller and JP Morgan.

You are the one who supports corporate communism, and you don't even know it.

Markets do not need corporations, and corporations are certainly no fan of competitive markets.

Corporate communisn? LMFAO

Give me minute, crying a bit.

Markets like corporations because they efficiently mass produce goods, generally at a lower price than smaller comanies do.

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

The big businesses you worship mainly stole the tech, and monopolized the markets.

We would be better off with out them. You know nothing of history. Read up on Rockefeller and JP Morgan.

You are the one who supports corporate communism, and you don't even know it.

Markets do not need corporations, and corporations are certainly no fan of competitive markets.

I think the core problem with you is that you just don't grasp the necessity of large companies in the industrialised manufacturing process. Industrialisation is the difference between shoes costing $20 or $150 a pair, it's what makes high tech good possible at all. Small scale producers of goods can't make anything affordable, as the man hours input is massively higher than a mechanised production line.

You need large companies to set up large mechanised production lines. To pump hundreds of millions of dollars into drug research. They make modern life possible.

You/sz have a basic fail in understanding of how wealth is produced in our civilisation. Practically an identical level of lack of understanding.

reply to post by Antigod


It really is sad that you do not know that the original corporations were an extension of the crown, a form of government directed by a central authority.

While Marx dreamed up the communist ideal, it turned out to be nothing more or less than rule by corporation.

Yeah, little details are important.

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

It really is sad that you do not know that the original corporations were an extension of the crown, a form of government directed by a central authority.

While Marx dreamed up the communist ideal, it turned out to be nothing more or less than rule by corporation.

Yeah, little details are important.

You keep coming up with all this conspiracy stuff but know nothing about how modern ecoonomics work. Post relevant information.

I'm basically sick of your/sz's condescending and arrogant attitude. I could live with it if you were well informed and passing on useful information, but it's patently obvious you don't understand how a market functions, or the make up of the 1% you want to disposses for the crimes of making money. You claim people have said and done things they haven't, and when confronted with your own (sorry, Sz's, so hard to tell you apart) statements you continually deflect.

Basically you are not doing anything here but ranting. I seriously suggest a few weeks studying economics. I mean proper economics, not that hysterical Occupy crud you've obviously been reading.

reply to post by Antigod


it is clear from your posts that you are getting more and more emotional.

A corporation is a legal entity formed by a financial commune.

The purpose of the corporate entity is not to engage in market economics, but to usurp the law of supply and demand, and dictate price through any means of control possible.

I know they didn't teach you this stuff in school, but at some point you need to get out of the box and figure things out for yourself.

Look up the history of Standard Oil.

Market economies are always more competitive, and therefore better off without corporate entities.

I have presented the facts, it is your choice whether or not to face them.