The rich own the wealth.

Thanks for proving my point perfectly. You dont want your stuff touched but anyone more successful than you should have their stuff taken.
Please tell us, enlighten us on where you draw the line as to who is wealthy and who isnt? Apparently its somewhere between people who own a computer and one car and people who own a computer but have a second car.
LOL what a frickn riot.

 

The conversation in this thread has historical similarities to the 1917 October revolution in Russia.
After the revolution, Russia quickly disintegrated into civil war. with the Bolsheviks, the Reds going against the Whites (Anti-Bolshevik forces)...this led to the Red Terror.

Basically the working class, the proletariat vs. the wealthy ruling class, the bourgeoisie.

To put into 21st Century vernacular....the 99% vs. the 1%

Violence was and is implicit in Marxism itself.

The Red Terror was the first of numerous Communist terror campaigns which followed in Russia and many other countries. Many people do not know the extent of communism's atrocities. ... to the more than 100 million people who died as a direct result of communism.

 

they don't?
do you know how much an unemployed single mother of one can make in benefits if she received all she would qualify to receive?
take a guess

 

Those are YOUR rules. Where did they come from?

Please note that I have not ratified YOUR rules.

 

Class warfare is a very common tactic that is used by the left to gain and remain in power and a ruthless totalitarian regime always follows

 

Sounds like a factual statement.

It wouldn't make any sense if the poor owned the wealth would it ?

 

it isn't his rules it is an economic rule
if you aren't allowed to keep the fruits of your labor then why do the labor?
It is why under communism you are forced to do the labor as a slave to the state, and usually with a gun pointed at you

 

Compared to those that gain her vote? Little.

 

That's a long story but, in a nutshell, they 'created' the wealth by co-opting the three branches of government and the financial system. It's a real simple process but it isn't worthy of the word 'create'. The idea is to game the system so that cash flows in only one direction.

 

If it isn't his rule it is an economic rule made by him - as if it came out of the ether and was ordained by God. I'm just trying to figure out where his rules came from.

Btw, in our system we have other things pointed at us. You know, starvation, marginalization, homelessness; those sorts of things. The kinds of things that should never happen in this land of plenty, and wouldn't except for the failure of the delivery system.

 

it doesn't have to.

 

We're at the point now where it DOES have to. The valves are all one way. I mean, every single one.

 

Apparently you don't understand tyranny, prisons and slavery...

 

and I will ask you the same question the other class warfare defender couldn't answer
do you know how much a single mother of one can receive in benefits if she received all she was qualified to receive?
the poor are not starving in the streets. the American poor do as well as most middle class in other developed nations do
so take a guess

 

Do the rich pay you an income? Then there is indeed a valve pointing the other way. It's up to you to convince others to keep the tank filling up instead of draining it.

 

Maybe that's the reason for feeling the way I do. The rich DO NOT pay me an income. I'm not bought. The question now is, who's doing the filling and who's doing the draining. Or, are the rich filling my tank with my own gas.

 

By all that, I take it to mean that you approve of the welfare system. Can't argue with you there, by golly.

I do contend, however, that if the cash was spread more evenly (i.e., instead of in the casinos for example) and there wasn't that giant sucking sound at the top, there would be a greatly reduced need for welfare.

 

People drain their tanks when they get consumer debt, buy foreign products, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Who spends money at the casino? It's one hundred percent voluntary.

 

yes i approve welfare so children don't starve in the streets but we have gone away beyond that
over 35,000 dollars a years is what a single mother of one can receive in benefits if she receives all that she qualified for
If you make it to comfortable to be poor there is no incentive not to be

 

The majority of the American people see it. And they are going to lean toward affecting the same... in whatever ways they must. Politics (VOTING) is the public's most potent tool and they WILL use it.

 

We could argue that point now, but a better time would be when that mother of one can actually get a job. My question for now is, why would she NOT get $35,000 if she is qualified for it?

 

By 'casino', I'm not referring to Binion's, I'm talking Wall Street. Wall Street has discovered ways of creating fabulous wealth without the inconvenience of having to produce anything or hiring employees. And when they mess up, guess which way the valve opens.

 

Pity that no one can tell me where the rules came from.

 

because most starting jobs don't pay that much so what incentive does she have to go out and support her self when she can sit her ass at home and rely on the tax payer to work for her

 

You'd better be careful with your ant analogy. Ants are actually one of the prime examples of group selection vs. individual selection, with a society that is rather resembling a socialist system:

http://www.virginiaabernethy.com/guestarticaldetail.php?guestarticalid=14

If you want to talk about giving up property for others in the group: Ants give up their ultimate genetic property, the right to reproduction, to ensure greater fitness of the group as a whole. So, for arguments against redistribution, ants are a terrible example.