Nice one Somebody. AK Rowling actually DID use her brains to get rich, without the help of anyone elses wealth! Like Rush said, it's called CREATING!

How about Ron Popiele, (probably spelled wrong). You know, the guy who CREATES all of those inventive products to HELP people? Started with nothing.

Speaking of people who make minimum wages, they do NOT have to be in that circumstance. Nearly everyone has the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make something better out of their existance. There ARE exceptions. The indigent, the elderly, people with NO ambition!

There is a man living in this country RIGHT now, who came here with nothing. He had talent, and did something with it. Now he is the Governor of California! So don't tell me an unknown, with nothing but his brains, can't get anywhere here.
Oh, and by the way, just so you know, he works for $1.00 a year as the Governor.
And he donates a large amount of his wealth to the needy.

Cudos to Arnold!



B-IV

Nice one Somebody. AK Rowling actually DID use her brains to get rich, without the help of anyone elses wealth! Like Rush said, it's called CREATING!

How about Ron Popiele, (probably spelled wrong). You know, the guy who CREATES all of those inventive products to HELP people? Started with nothing.

Speaking of people who make minimum wages, they do NOT have to be in that circumstance. Nearly everyone has the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make something better out of their existance. There ARE exceptions. The indigent, the elderly, people with NO ambition!

There is a man living in this country RIGHT now, who came here with nothing. He had talent, and did something with it. Now he is the Governor of California! So don't tell me an unknown, with nothing but his brains, can't get anywhere here.
Oh, and by the way, just so you know, he works for $1.00 a year as the Governor.
And he donates a large amount of his wealth to the needy.

Cudos to Arnold!



B-IV

Yes! It's amazing how far you can get in your country by lifting heavy things, taking steroids and saying 'I'll be back' a lot. You should be proud.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Nice one Somebody. AK Rowling actually DID use her brains to get rich, without the help of anyone elses wealth! Like Rush said, it's called CREATING!

How about Ron Popiele, (probably spelled wrong). You know, the guy who CREATES all of those inventive products to HELP people? Started with nothing.

Speaking of people who make minimum wages, they do NOT have to be in that circumstance. Nearly everyone has the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make something better out of their existance. There ARE exceptions. The indigent, the elderly, people with NO ambition!

There is a man living in this country RIGHT now, who came here with nothing. He had talent, and did something with it. Now he is the Governor of California! So don't tell me an unknown, with nothing but his brains, can't get anywhere here.
Oh, and by the way, just so you know, he works for $1.00 a year as the Governor.
And he donates a large amount of his wealth to the needy.

Cudos to Arnold!



B-IV

Arnold had talent?????

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Nice one Somebody. AK Rowling actually DID use her brains to get rich, without the help of anyone elses wealth! Like Rush said, it's called CREATING!

How about Ron Popiele, (probably spelled wrong). You know, the guy who CREATES all of those inventive products to HELP people? Started with nothing.

Speaking of people who make minimum wages, they do NOT have to be in that circumstance. Nearly everyone has the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make something better out of their existance. There ARE exceptions. The indigent, the elderly, people with NO ambition!

There is a man living in this country RIGHT now, who came here with nothing. He had talent, and did something with it. Now he is the Governor of California! So don't tell me an unknown, with nothing but his brains, can't get anywhere here.
Oh, and by the way, just so you know, he works for $1.00 a year as the Governor.
And he donates a large amount of his wealth to the needy.

Kudos to Arnold! <Edited for spelling.>



B-IV

Arnold had talent?????

Please, Arnold gets hammered enough. He is human, he has made some mistakes; however, to me, my Wife, and many others I know he has proven himself as a decent man, (generally speaking), and a good Governor. MUCH BETTER than Gray Doofus could ever hope to be...

Whom do you want as a Governor; a Wrestler??? (Yes that is a jab at what's his name, whom I believe isn't Governor anymore...) Bottom line, California has improved under Arnold. I voted for him in the Recall against Doofus; I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat. With the improvements to California under his reign, that shows definite talent.

8-D


Again, KUDOS to Arnold!

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

nice guy

---

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Karl Marx

And the communist party makes that decision!
That statement is so open to abuse!

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Karl Marx

And the communist party makes that decision!
That statement is so open to abuse!

ANY situtation where one man has power over another is open to abuse Richard.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The fact is that 90 percent of the wealth in this country is held by 10 percent of the population...

Another erroneous, self-serving, silly generalizaton.

A) This is wrong. B) But even if it were true, why does that matter? I'll ask you again. It's a fact that Noamy Chomsky is rich beyond your wildest dreams, while some that read his books don't have two nickels to rub together, how did Noamy skrew those people? How does Oprah skrew the exceedingly poor people that watch her show?

Without their 'approval', you don't advance... Very few have come up with ideas or inventions to defeat that system, and even fewer have 'worked' there way to the top... @ 5 bucks per hour, there just aren't enough hours in the day to make that amount to anything... Poor people don't ever get rich without the help of someone who is already rich... Crunch the numbers, you'll see, it doesn't add up... ;)

The numbers have been crunched extensively and you continually misrepresent them with vacuous, asinine, statements.

So again, I ask you specifically: who did Bill Gates get approval from to create his software? Who did Noamy ask to get rich? Did Oprah go hat in hand to some Star Chamber to get her riches? Who did Michael Moore go to to get rich.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

How did Oprah skrew you, Jeffrey? How is Michael Moore keeping you down?

The original wealth was 'created' by paying people as little as they could for their labour and skill. In this the way the wealth gets funneled upwards.

So where did they get it in the first place? Where did that original wealth come from? Answer the questions above, how did George Lucas skrew the poor in making Star Wars? How much of Steven Spielberg's thumb is stopping them from earning a living?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

That statement is so open to abuse!

ANY situtation where one man has power over another is open to abuse Richard.

So then, why are you so keen on getting the gov't to continually take more power? Who do you think that affects the most, the Chomskys, Oprahs, and Moores?

Or do you think that it likely affects those that can afford it the least, the most? For example, do you think that the sales tax, say on a gallon of milk, hurts the person making 100 million a year more, or the person making 15K a year more?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So then, why are you so keen on getting the gov't to continually take more power? Who do you think that affects the most, the Chomskys, Oprahs, and Moores?

Where on Earth have I ever advocated that? and you know that the Chomsky's and the Moores (I don't know about Oprah..I'm not a fan) are small fry compared to the Arms dealers, executive directors, oil companies, Starbucks owners and all the other exploiters of the masses..

Or do you think that it likely affects those that can afford it the least, the most? For example, do you think that the sales tax, say on a gallon of milk, hurts the person making 100 million a year more, or the person making 15K a year more?

I agree.. raise income tax and lower sales tax. More taxes on the rich!! Absolutely!!

---

Reality Internet Personality

Where on Earth have I ever advocated that?

I'm generally not referring to YOU in particular, but since you asked, you seemed perfectly happy to use the gov't to stick guns in people's faces to advance your idea of what "equal" means.

and you know that the Chomsky's and the Moores (I don't know about Oprah..I'm not a fan) are small fry compared to the Arms dealers, executive directors, oil companies, Starbucks owners and all the other exploiters of the masses..

They're just examples. But we can use yours if you wish. How does Starbucks exploit the masses? How are they holding Jeffrey down? I mean, he isn't forced to buy their product, he isn't forced to supply them with anything. They started selling coffee as a little shop in Seattle and they didn't go hat in hand asking anyone if they could get rich, please. They just sold cups of good coffee that people valued more than they valued the money in their wallet--so those people traded it for the coffee.

What about the executive directors you mention up there? You tell me, how is Indra Nooyi, the Pepsico CEO skrewing Jeffrey or the poor? Who did she ask to get rich? She just sells them a glass of sody pop, which, of course, they value more than the money in their wallet, so they trade it for the soda. They aren't forced to buy sody pop. The choose to.

And the oil companies, hmmmm, I'll bet most people value the gasoline they buy more than the money in their wallet too. In fact, I know that's true because they trade it for the fuel. They aren't forced to buy fuel either, but they do, why? Because it makes their lives easier? That it isn't as cheap as they would like is of no real concern--they have no right to it.

And what about pay, you might ask? You think these companies don't pay enough to suit you? So what? As I've asked Jeffrey, why don't people pay $500.00 to have their lawn mowed? I mean, it sure would be nice for the poor lawn mowers to have someone pay them that much, but no one does. Why? Because ALL people pay what the job is worth TO THEM. For example, you want your lawn mowed, you pay some poor person $20 bucks (or whatever) because that it what it is worth TO YOU. Not $500. $20. Or, say you want your sody pop above. You pay Pepsico $1.00 for that sody pop because that is ALL that the job of them creating the sody pop is worth to you. You wouldn't pay them $500 for that sody pop because it isn't worth it to you.

People pay babysitters the same way, they offer what the job is worth to them, not what the person who may be doing it may need. People don't generally pay $500 for a night of babysitting either.

The principle is simple--people offer to pay what the job is worth to them. Whether it is lawn mowing, baby sitting, or hiring people at Pepsico or Starbucks. They don't offer more, because then it isn't worth it to them. "Hell, if I have to pay $500 bucks to get my lawn mowed, I'll just do it myself." Or, "If I have to pay $20 an hour per person to sell coffee, that's too much, I won't hire people at that price, and I won't open another store."

You may not agree with what Pepsico pays, but you can understand the principle behind it.

I agree.. raise income tax and lower sales tax. More taxes on the rich!! Absolutely!!

A) That's called a flat tax, and generally people who think as you do fight the hardest against it. Hey, do you think that taxing the rich more, will result in more handouts to the poor? See below.

But on that note, why don't we just tax the rich 100% of their income? For example, the highest marginal tax rate under JFK was 90%. 90%. How is it that the highest marginal rate now is 2/3 less and yet the gov't takes in more money? Could it be that people don't work as hard to pay taxes? How hard would you work after you reached the point that 90% of every new dollar you made was going to pay for a shiny new M1A1 Abrams tank? Or a new Stinger missile? Or to pay the instructors as the WHISC?

B) Note though, that that's not what happens. The poor are taxed to death to pay for B-1s, B-2s, and F-117s, War In Iraq, and your pet WHISC. You see, some other people begged the gov't to use to force against others to fund what was important to them. And it wasn't welfare or handouts to the poor. In fact, it wasn't help for the poor at all.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'm generally not referring to YOU in particular, but since you asked, you seemed perfectly happy to use the gov't to stick guns in people's faces to advance your idea of what "equal" means.

Just shows how many assumptions you made. You think because I disagree with you, therefore I must agree with [fill in random left wing commie here]

They're just examples. But we can use yours if you wish. How does Starbucks exploit the masses? How are they holding Jeffrey down? I mean, he isn't forced to buy their product, he isn't forced to supply them with anything. They started selling coffee as a little shop in Seattle and they didn't go hat in hand asking anyone if they could get rich, please. They just sold cups of good coffee that people valued more than they valued the money in their wallet--so those people traded it for the coffee.

What about the executive directors you mention up there? You tell me, how is Indra Nooyi, the Pepsico CEO skrewing Jeffrey or the poor? Who did she ask to get rich? She just sells them a glass of sody pop, which, of course, they value more than the money in their wallet, so they trade it for the soda. They aren't forced to buy sody pop. The choose to

And the oil companies, hmmmm, I'll bet most people value the gasoline they buy more than the money in their wallet too. In fact, I know that's true because they trade it for the fuel. They aren't forced to buy fuel either, but they do, why? Because it makes their lives easier? That it isn't as cheap as they would like is of no real concern--they have no right to it?

And what about pay, you might ask? You think these companies don't pay enough to suit you? So what? As I've asked Jeffrey, why don't people pay $500.00 to have their lawn mowed? I mean, it sure would be nice for the poor lawn mowers to have someone pay them that much, but no one does. Why? Because ALL people pay what the job is worth TO THEM. For example, you want your lawn mowed, you pay some poor person $20 bucks (or whatever) because that it what it is worth TO YOU. Not $500. $20. Or, say you want your sody pop above. You pay Pepsico $1.00 for that sody pop because that is ALL that the job of them creating the sody pop is worth to you. You wouldn't pay them $500 for that sody pop because it isn't worth it to you.

People pay babysitters the same way, they offer what the job is worth to them, not what the person who may be doing it may need. People don't generally pay $500 for a night of babysitting either.

The principle is simple--people offer to pay what the job is worth to them. Whether it is lawn mowing, baby sitting, or working at Pepsico or Starbucks. They don't offer more, because then it isn't worth it to them. "Hell, if I have to pay $500 bucks to get my lawn mowed, I'll just do it myself." Or, "If I have to pay $20 an hour per person to sell coffee, that's too much, I won't hire people at that price, or I won't open another store."

You may not agree with what Pepsico pays, but you can understand the principle behind it.

Rush, you are surely not so ignorant of the way the markets operate to ensure our money goes in their pockets. These people are not benign benefactors offering a service we desire. They create the desire, they create the market, they ruthlessly squash rivals and any alternative (we all know how hard the car companies work through lobbying and misinformation to squash research into alternatives, get their politicians into government to pass laws favourable to them. To undercut and control free trade. There is no real 'choice' here. It's much like the 'choice' one gives to a 2 year old..do you want fish fingers or breaded fish sticks. It's an illusion of choice. Capitalism is not a solution for the many, it ensures the many work to benefit the few.

A) That's called a flat tax, and generally people who think as you do fight the hardest against it. Hey, do you think that taxing the rich more, will result in more handouts to the poor? See below.

B) Note though, that that's not what happens. The poor are taxed to death to pay for B-1s, B-2s, and F-117s, War In Iraq, and your pet WHISC. You see, some other people begged the gov't to use to force against others to fund what was important to them. And it wasn't welfare or handouts to the poor. In fact, it wasn't help for the poor at all.

The governments are no longer here to serve the people, they are here to serve the multinationals. This is just a case in point.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Rush, you are surely not so ignorant of the way the markets operate to ensure our money goes in their pockets. These people are not benign benefactors offering a service we desire. They create the desire, they create the market, they ruthlessly squash rivals and any alternative (we all know how hard the car companies work through lobbying and misinformation to squash research into alternatives, get their politicians into government to pass laws favourable to them.

Yet you still have free choice. You do not need to buy Starbucks. You do not need Pepsi or Coke in your fridge. Regardless of your ideas that they created desire, people by nature desire to make their lives better. They desire Pepsi because they tired of drinking brackish water.

They certainly created the market, and thank jeebus. You need not attend if you do not wish to, beyond the basic subsistence. Yet you do. You bought your computer and you enjoy using it, therefore it was worth more to you than the money spent on it and the money you pay to power it. That you have personal opinions concerning the motivations of those that sold it to you means nothing. You did not have to buy the computer, yet you did, even thinking as you noted above. They don't need to be benign, they do, however, have to offer you a product you are willing to trade them your money for. And you did.

You note the car companies lobbying the gov't--which of course furthers my other point. Since the gov't is not acting according to principle, this is what you get. If it's OK to lobby the gov't to stick guns in people's faces, then plenty of people will do that TO YOUR DETRIMENT. Because it's OK.

To undercut and control free trade. There is no real 'choice' here. It's much like the 'choice' one gives to a 2 year old..do you want fish fingers or breaded fish sticks.

Except that few indeed are two year olds. Life is a series of never-ending choices. You don't have to buy either a laptop, or a mobile computing station. You don't have to buy a Coke, a Pepsi, or a chilled carbonated beverage. Offer your definition of "choice" above to an 18 year old and they'll sneer at you, and rightfully so.

It's an illusion of choice. Capitalism is not a solution for the many, it ensures the many work to benefit the few.

These aren't arguments, they're just conclusory statements. As I've demonstrated, you really don't have to buy nearly anything beyond subsistence level. Yet people do--because they want to make their lives better, easier, more entertaining, et cetera. That is not an illusion of choice, it a part of reality that is inseparable from their lives.

Shockingly enough, even the weak form of Capitalism as seen in the U.S. or Hong Kong, and a few other places, actually provides the most income, product choice, et cetera for the greatest number. Even the very poor here have color TVs and mobile phones. Which means actually that the many work to better their lives, and they do so willingly. Sure a few of them get exceedingly rich, but again, so what? Those few make it possible for the rest who are incapable of doing it themselves. Which is why I continue to ask why the autoworkers union just doesn't run those closed GM plants themselves. Why don't they all get together (there are hundreds of thousands of them) take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need and run those plants? Why don't they sell those cars themselves? What are they waiting for? GM got the hell out of their way and doesn't want anything to do with them.

The governments are no longer here to serve the people, they are here to serve the multinationals. This is just a case in point.

Which again illustrates my point. When the principle behind gov't is nothing more than begging it to use force against others, this is what you get.

This is what you asked for, this is what you got. "Taxing the rich," won't save you from it anymore.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Where did that original wealth come from?

I believe I've already answered that question here.

Historically, the nobility were supported by taxes on the poor

And yes, the 'noble' still represent the 10% who still hold 90% of wealth today... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Where did that original wealth come from?

I believe I've already answered that question here.

Then, as usual, you would be wrong.

So, I'll re-ask. Where did wealth come from? What is wealth? How did the first guy who ever had wealth, get it?

Step up to the plate. Make an argument. Defend whatever postion you have.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Where did that original wealth come from?

I believe I've already answered that question here.

Then, as usual, you would be wrong.

So, I'll re-ask. Where did wealth come from? What is wealth? How did the first guy who ever had wealth, get it?

May I guess?
Greed?

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Where did that original wealth come from?

I believe I've already answered that question here.

Then, as usual, you would be wrong.

So, I'll re-ask. Where did wealth come from? What is wealth? How did the first guy who ever had wealth, get it?

May I guess?
Greed?

Jim, he didn not ask the motivation behind gathering wealth, he asked (and asked and asked again),
"Where did wealth come from?"
Answer that question before moving on to motivation.

Where did that original wealth come from?

I believe I've already answered that question here.

Then, as usual, you would be wrong.

So, I'll re-ask. Where did wealth come from? What is wealth? How did the first guy who ever had wealth, get it?

May I guess?
Greed?

Jim, he didn not ask the motivation behind gathering wealth, he asked (and asked and asked again),
"Where did wealth come from?"
Answer that question before moving on to motivation.

Someone hoarded up what everyone wanted (probably food or an offer of protection for pay).

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Jim, he didn not ask the motivation behind gathering wealth, he asked (and asked and asked again),
"Where did wealth come from?"
Answer that question before moving on to motivation.

From the labour of the workers.

---

Reality Internet Personality