Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

I don't attack them.

You don't see that your victimization of them, as well as support for policies too sustain them, encourages more of the same decision making that lead to impoverished conditions?

 

Sure I do, but it only discuss one of the options that you keep circling back to, newly issued stock.

I have already pointed out how ownership can decide to split stock and sell their own in order to raise capital, which of market capitalization recovers to pre-split level, the self financed with no loss or interest.

You agreed, and said out isn't used often because it's risky.

I responded back that it's used all the time in startups and business that is seeing market capitalization growth.

Then you circle back to... "so it's newly issued.

No.

That is one method, but not the example I keep referencing.

 

In the interest of 'capital'? Who is 'capital'?

 

Of course you do.

"Victimization"? They are my victims?? I caused them to be poor??

You parrot stories spewed by Fox, Breitbart, Newsmax, and other extremist fake news sites. So what you say is devoid of truth.

 

Funny, I don't watch or read any of those new sites. But I do live in reality and see the repercussions of the liberal agenda which desires to make people of poverty victims, often times the wealthy, while simultaneously supporting more government programs which make them dependent all while completely dismissing personal responsibility.

Empathy breeds dependency.

But... make blanket stereotypes about me and tell me why I think a certain way if it makes you feel better. You have proven in this thread alone that you aren't here for logical and reasonable debate.

 

Maybe "victimization" wasn't the best word, maybe "characterization of them as victims" would have been better, but I knew what she meant, and I suspect you do too.

When you paint the poor as "victims" you attempt to absolve them of all personal responsibility, as if they bear no responsibility at all for their situation. Calling them "victims" may make the SJWs feel all warm and fuzzy about throwing taxpayer money at them, but rarely is it accurate that they are "victims" at all. Behind most poor people you will find someone with a history of irresponsible life choices and/or laziness and a lack of work ethic.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't mind having my taxpayer money being used as a safety net for people who are legitimately poor due to circumstances beyond their control (for example, the genuinely disabled.) But I've had enough of throwing my hard-earned money at people who are "poor" due to their own irresponsibility and/or laziness.

 

You have shown you're not CAPABLE of logical and reasonable debate. See your first paragraph here.

 

But her first paragraph is entirely logical. People like you paint the poor as "victims" so you can justify throwing money at them and perpetuating the endless cycle of dependency and generational welfare.

 

Well, know what? We are all victims of the top 0.1% with some suffering from that victimization more than others. And it's time we did something about it.

 

I'm sorry, I don't share your victim mentality. "Do something about it" to me means work harder.

 

Then you don't grasp the power structures in place and their effects.

 

And we ask the same question again - what happened with tax policy starting in 1979 ?? Small business (who use pass through) incomes are now counted in those statistics.

This is the same old false narrative repeated over and over again.

 

And click. Ignore. Done. You are only here to push peoples buttons and jam your agenda and position down peoples throats in a condescending attitude masquerading as debate.

Move along.

 

Gladly. You're not worth debating with all your dodging, spinning, and parroting of propaganda. I want to debate with people who think for themselves.

 

Your preference to "go it alone" means pitting individuals, separately, against organized power seeking to separate you from as much of your money as they can including with laws and conditions that limit your ability to respond -because you have no real power. That is the same as rolling over for such power. I'm not willing to roll over for it.

 

But the rich and powerful do have government to solve their problems for them. You're surrendering to them.

 

Clearly what this means is that in our exceptional society, the vast majority of our citizens are deadbeat lazy ass losers who want everything handed to them.

 

By keeping it an issue of individuals, you play right into their (rich and powerful) hands. We already have a range of incomes in every job description whereby those who have more experience, on average ("average" is a departure from the concept of "individual"), receive more income in that range. So when you only look at individuals you miss this existing condition by which everyone's individual income gradually grows over time, even if it doesn't keep up with the rate of income growth of the rich and powerful (thus increasing disparity), and even when the overall range of incomes in any job description fails to increase with inflation. Yes, your income will increase. And you are being deceived by that and settling for what exists without being able to share fairly in the new income increases as most of it has gone to the top. This is what a focus on individuals does to objectivity as it makes it subjective.

 

Do you really have this slanderous, contemptuous view of your fellow man?

 

That would have to be the american capitalist version of how this could happen, those with less have less because they are inferior undeserving beings who contribute little to society. One hears that message all the time in this society, except of course when the concept cannibalizes itself.

 

This is just a pity-party..excuses...always blaming others for our problems...

 

Still not addressing the fact that if you are waiting by the wayside for someone to improve your life then you are deservedly going to be waiting a long time, no one owes you anything. Mandatory minimum incomes means people will not get hired for entry level jobs and jobs whose value does not meet that will be automated.

 

Yes labor is an EXPENSE and someone working has no claim to profits being "fairly shared". If you want a share of the profits after all those expenses including labor expenses are paid then invest in the company and be willing to give up some of your wage if the company loses money that month. Or you can do as I do and bet paid directly by what revenue you bring into the company which means if you don't you don't get paid.

 

Get a job, you 50%.

 

Realize that what you say is only true within the legal framework that serves capitalism. It is not some kind of "universal truth". It's capitalist law. That's all. So when I propose the examination of capitalism and consideration of a new and different economic model, it's a legitimate concern.

And again, all that is only about life within the capitalist system. It doesn't apply to all economic forms.