American's 20 richest people have more money than half the population

[arch stanton]

You'll be his Admiral Stockdale

[nate]

Fortunately Bernie losing the nomination should close the book on Socialism in America.

[Adam]

Doubtful. Now the country is ripe for a twat like Warren

[nate]

Yeah... The entitled generation of SJWs want their handouts.

[Angelsjunky]

AJ what exactly do you do day in and day out to help those less fortunate? Obviously you have more than some people out there which is unfair to those less fortunate than you. So besides crying about the rich tell us what you do to make it better for the "needy".

 

My entire profession is based on helping others. Some are "less fortunate" (financially) some are far more.

[Amazing Larry]

If you think the current situation in this country is laissez faire you're ****ing nuts.

[wopphil]

My entire profession is based on helping others. Some are "less fortunate" (financially) some are far more.

Most of us can make that exact same claim. I know I can.

[Adam]

I think AJ's "help" is really "indoctrination"

[ten ocho recon scout]

I agree, which is why I support Bernie - he's not a corporate puppet, and is actively speaking out against corporate puppets.

Anyhow, I like watching this video every so often for inspiration:

funny wnough i just watched that clip a few hours ago and was gonna post it on here to get everyone going.

I disagree the money those rich people have ahould be reredistributed to the rest of the public. I do however think if it went to me it would help a ton. I can guarantee plenty of college girls would get a free education via that money if it were to happen. Which is kind of what sanders is calling for. (Just probably in a less fun way then i have planned)

[Angelsjunky]

I don't know, you tell me. I actually expected you'd try to claim that none of these wealthy individuals is responsible for creating jobs, so this is at least an improvement.

But you should attempt to rebut my point, seeing as how your initial point regarding job creation is very flawed.

 

Which point? Are you talking about this?

 

You gotta be just trolling us at this point. You realize that those 20 people employ (or the companies they founded employ) millions of others, right?

Can you tell us how many people the bottom of society employs? Can you tell us how much wealth the bottom of society has created and contributed? Can you tell us how much tax revenue the bottom of society has generated?

 

Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. The people at the "bottom of society," by definition, can't really contribute much monetarily, and the people at the top can.

 

As I've said a million times before, I have no issue with a range of wealth--I'm not a communist--but when I see a statistic like the one in the original post, I find it morally repugnant. To me it is a symptom that something is very wrong.

[Angelsjunky]

Most of us can make that exact same claim. I know I can.

 

Cool. Not sure what you're getting at. I don't claim to be special in this regard.

[Angelsjunky]

I think AJ's "help" is really "indoctrination"

 

Actually, it is quite the opposite. If anything, my work involves trying to help people free themselves from indoctrination and find their own way in the world.

[nate]

I think it is morally reprehensible to steal money from people that earned it because there are others that are less fortunate.  It should be up to them what they do.  Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.  Two of the 20 richest in the US.

[Adam]

No profits.

No taxes.

No freebies for losers.

Profits good. 

[Angelsjunky]

If you think the current situation in this country is laissez faire you're ****ing nuts.

 

Depends what you're comparing it to. Compared to the rest of the world, it certainly is. Compared to libertarian fantasies and Ayn Rand's objectivism, no - and thank the gods for that. There never has been a fully laissez-faire economy, and for good reason.

[Adam]

How about comparing it to the definition of laissez-faire?

[mtangelsfan]

That would require a straight answer.

[Angelsjunky]

I think it is morally reprehensible to steal money from people that earned it because there are others that are less fortunate.  It should be up to them what they do.  Look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.  Two of the 20 richest in the US.

 

Or Mark Zuckerberg, who has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth to his initiative for education and medicine. Pretty cool, that.

 

Anyhow, we've gone over this before. I've granted you that I can see your viewpoint, and find some truth to it. But you've rebuffed any attempt to come to compromise, or to see beyond your fixed perspective on this. For better or worse we live in a society, and we must compromise. You are married, right? How do you come to compromise with your wife when you disagree? Or is it "my way, or the highway"?

 

More importantly, you never provide an alternative. For example, you say that it is morally reprehensible to steal money from people who have earned it. This implies that you think we should do away with income tax. Completely? If so, what to do about our already crumbling infrastructure? What is your alternative? And how to get there? What about other programs that are funded by the government? Or do you believe in complete privatization?

[Adam]

Compromising is for pussies

 

 

Vote Gary Johnson

[mtangelsfan]

You saying that "you understand or agree with our sentiment" is not "compromise".  You still push progressive policies to the max.

[Angelsjunky]

You saying that "you understand or agree with our sentiment" is not "compromise".  You still push progressive policies to the max.

 

Look at it this way. In some ways this forum is a microcosm of American politics, a tug-of-war between left and right (although I'd say Angelspin is more conservative than America as a whole, perhaps because of the OC demographic). Let's say I'm on one side of the aisle and you guys are on the other. I want progressive policies, strong social programs, etc, and you guys want laissez-faire libertarianism. So how do we compromise? We have to start with understanding each other, what we're really saying. All I get from you guys is, "You're wrong, I'm right." We'll never get anywhere that way.

 

Where's the middle ground? And, to be honest, I probably come across as more left-leaning than I am, because I over-compensate because of this forum. There are actually some areas where we broadly agree.

 

For instance, we all share a distaste for SJWs. We mostly share a dislike of establishment politics and the mixing of church and state. Most of us also broadly agree on social libertarianism. But where we disagree is on the scale of socialism to capitalism and the role of government. The main difference seems to be that most here want all capitalism, no socialism, and an almost complete lack of a federal government. I see a mix as being best, an integration, and that the role of government should be to serve and protect the people.

 

So let's say nate says "100 capitalism, 0 socialism," and I counter with, "How about 50-50," and he says, "No, 100-0." And so we're left at a stalemate (or a statenate?).

 

But the reality of the political situation is that we're never going to one extreme or the other. So how to compromise? And let's say we humor the "100-0" group, my question, again, is if we do that, how do we deal with the problems of poverty, health care, education, the environment, climate change, etc? "The market will decide" is not an answer, in my opinion. It is an extremism that will never fully see the light of day, so we might as well grow up a bit and try to find compromise.

[Grigori]

First off, this is pure fiction. All you have to do to know it is totally false is go to Forbes list of richest Americans, add up the top 20's wealth and divide it by the trillions of dollars of wealth in this country.  It's a very small percent.

 

Second, China is minting more billionaires at a faster pace than the US.  Their economy is growing at 6-7% per year, too.  We can't even achieve 2% these days with the crushing burden of an oversized and overspending government. America devotes 39% of GDP to government and China only 29% at all levels. They are more capitalist than we are. Tens of millions of Chinese are moving out of the country where they lived in abject poverty into the cities where they are joining the middle class. It's a growing thriving country now, while ours is deteriorating under the thumb of the Obama government and atrocious economic policy designed by Pelosi and Reid. The point is, the creation of billionaires is an adjunct of a successful, vibrant, growing economy. 'If your economy is growing, like China's, billionaires are created, but everyone is benefitting.

 

People like AJ want to envision the world as this stagnant pie of wealth you have to divide up among the people so everyone can eat. That is not how it works. You can make the pie bigger, and billionaires simply by aggregating wealth for investment help with that. No, it's not all "trickle down," but that does not hurt. A lot of it is creativity and hard work. The billionaire is not a drag on the economy, nor does the billionaire deny others opportunity to make money.

 

AJ would do go do read Adam Smith, Bastiat and other great economists than to regurgitate this leftist garbage designed specifically to appeal to the greed and envy of people and make them feel dissatisfied. And, why do they do that? Power. They want to take money belonging to others and use it to increase their political power.

 

That is not what investors in our economy do. They hire people, create jobs, expand the size of the pie, and give people opportunity to improve their own lives and expand the pie themselves without depending upon government... small investors and large investors alike. Every save and investor in our country does way more for America than the greedy politicians in DC selling envy. You can't eat envy. You can eat food you buy with a paying job that produces even more for others.

 

The question is whether you want a job and create your own goals and opportunity, or do you want to be dependent on the idiots in Washington, DC, to make your life decisions? Economic freedom or economic dependence?

 

I choose freedom.

[Grigori]

LOL, AJ. So predictable. Talking about compromise. We aren't going to compromise. If you don't like it, you have options. You can move to North Korea and live your dream, for example.

[Angelsjunky]

How about comparing it to the definition of laissez-faire?

 

Dude, its not black and white, either/or. Its a matter of degree. You have laissez-faire on one hand, and statism on the other. The reality is that 99.9% of economies are mixes.

[nate]

Yeah, I have made many suggestions, AJ.  You just don't agree with them.

 

I have said from the beginning that if anything we need less welfare, we make it too easy for people to make it without contributing anything of substance of society.