The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central GOP - the party of the rich

Name calling will earn you no free Kaotic Points for that half off convenience store milk, and making assumptions about me only weakens your point.

The debt is only part of the problem.

So being a liberal is now name calling, checks his list of words and makes correction.

Why should the middle class and poor pay for the wars no-bid-contract & war-profiteers 1%ers got us into and pay for the financial shenanigans lets-deregulated 1%ers got us into. They got _filthy rich_ off it, but your solution is to cut a bunch of middle class fed jobs and cut social programs poor rely on?

You got me. I'm just an evil hatemonger who doesn't want peace, love and puppy dogs for everyone. Or maybe I'm a realist and I know that your socialist utopia will never EVER happen. Its not possible on a large scale.

Not sure what the first part means. As for making assumptions about your political view points, if it looks like a duck and quacks like one...

The debt really is only part of the problem. However, continuing to spend money we don't have while all the credit ratings agencies are standing on the precipice of downgrading us, while we print money we don't have to give to Greece via the IMF, while the Fed continues to buy our debt with more money we don't have, while the dollar continues its death spiral, while Putin gets set for a military take over of Russia, while Iran tries to start a war with us and with Israel, while China publicly announces that they are expanding their navy to "protect world peace," we should certainly continue business as usual and take care of all the downtrodden by stealing from one citizen to give to another. Here's a question for you. Who will take care of the poor when our country collapses?

You are not a realist, you are an astroturfed turkey that swollowed propaganda whole, without questioning or understanding logical conclusion to it; you think you are asking for fiscal conservatism but instead you are enabling oligarchy. Plus nobody here is asking for "socialist utopia", we simply don't want to live in your cronyistic dystopia and unlike you we have connected the dots.

I came to my conclusions long before the Tea Party came to be so even if your assertion that it is astroturf is true, then it doesn't apply to me. Nice try. You fail again.

For the record you've now implied that I'm stupid and implied that I'm ignorant and you've started name calling. Lest you forget that's a tactic that you've accused the rest of us of repeatedly. So, without any facts to support your claims, and lacking any of the numbers we've repeatedly asked you for I'm going to leave you to your arguments with anyone still willing to suffer the verbal abuse you so readily dispense. Oh, and I'm going to call you a name, you hypocrite.

I said:



You read:



Seems like a personal problem to me.

Increasing Middle Class

Good studies actually. Your last quote makes an especially good point - those with talent and unique or in-demand skills can be very successful. Just having some muscle isnt worth much anymore, and is worth even less when you have open trade with countries with low standards of living where muscle is even cheaper.

Change always brings opportunity as well as pitfalls. I just wish people would focus in absolute terms as to what the poor do have, instead of trying to make a wealth contrast. Pure jealousy does not actually help the poor. the only things historically shown to truly help the poor over an extended period are economic liberty, so they have the same chances in the market as wealthier people - and education.

A good example is regulations... some regulations are good, but most regulations are the result of powerful lobbyists ( for the 1% ) trying to use lawfare to strike a blow at existing or possible competition. Which is why I disagree so strongly with your "any regulation is a good regulation" stance. I find it so ironic that you who wants to try to strip wealth from the top until there is no income disparity, because you are afraid of the political power it grants the wealthy - turn around and side with the wealthy as they concoct strawman arguments to kill off their competition and fund lobbyists and PR campaigns with said wealth.

Also, a big flaw in your overall plan to eliminate the wealthy... is the fact that wealth is now global. Do you truly see the "superrich" who can go anywhere, and are the prime offenders in regards to your political power observations will simply stay in the USA and allow all their wealth to be taken? Of course they wont. And USA wealth redistribution wont even effect those who are lobbying our system but dont live in the USA in the first place.

I think you have a good goal, but your solutions just have so many consequences that I can only think you have not considered.

I read that study more like 'if you are not in finances, you won't be doing that well'. Is gambling with other people money is where we want our brightest minds to go, as oppose to science, engineering, education?



Please put your soap box away. Your loaded language use is not going to make your weak point any stronger. Discouraging accumulation of wealth at the top will make the country more prosperous, because other people will get greater share of this wealth. Current culture of golden parachutes and ridiculous 'perfomance' bonuses not actually tied to performance causes a lot of harm all throughout the system.



They are more than welcome to move to more tax-friendly environment, like Somalia. We covered this before, US enables wealth creation, while mobile-rich can take their existing wealth out and move elsewhere they would not be able to continue create this wealth without US.



Again, we already covered this. Your alternative of complete deregulation and reliance only on free market leads to oligarchy. History proven beyond any shadow of the doubt that "free market" is intrinsically unstable system and has to be supported with clear and strict regulation.