Social Security, the easy way to fix it...

I gotcha. The millions leftover without money for retirement can live in the streets, so the richest can get more of the nation's wealth, because "liberty isn't free."

Just another 1% apologist looking for (*)(*)(*)(*) the middle and lower folks to get more because more is never enough.

 

You're right. More is never enough to for the violent collectivists. They won't be happy until they confiscate 100% of individuals' incomes.

 

It doesn't look like the "collectivists" have been doing a very good job "confiscating" the nation's income.

The 1% and 0.1%, on the other hand ...

 

I said they want to, not that they have achieved their desired level of success yet. Hopefully they never will achieve their goals.

And as far as the evil 1%, they don't advocate the use of force to encroach upon and confiscate their neighbor's person or her property. That's your guys' desire.

 

The evil middle class has a looooong way to go just to get back to catch up to where they were, much less "confiscate" more.

They do it with "trickle down" policies and privileges their minions in govt pass for them. Which is why 1% apologists like you fight so hard to maintain them.

 

As I said, which you failed to address, the evil one percent don't advocate the use of force to encroach upon and confiscate their neighbor's person and her property. That's your guys' desire.

What I fight to maintain is respect for the person and property of my fellow man. You fight to plunder and boss around your fellow man. You're never going to get me on board with such a violent, anti-social policy.

 

As I responded, and you failed to address, "They do it with "trickle down" policies and privileges their minions in govt pass for them. Which is why 1% apologists like you fight so hard to maintain them."

You fight to maintain the privileges and policies that have transferred a greater and greater portion of the nation's income and wealth going to the very richest and away from the lazy evil middle class Americans.

Because more is never enough, is it?

 

By "trickle down", are you referring to policies that eliminate the violent appropriation of my neighbor's property? If so, I agree with such policies. I consider it unethical to encroach upon the person or property of my neighbor. You haven't yet convinced me that your violent ways are civilized or ethically justified.

Unlike you, I am not motivated by envy. I fight to prevent the violation of my neighbor's person and property. Unlike you, I don't think it is justified to use violence to expropriate the property of my neighbor or to use violence to criminalize his otherwise peaceful behavior.

 

What do I owe you? Nothing. SS is not a welfare program. Only ignorant people consider a retirement plan. It is robbing the lower and middle class of their wealth building potential. It is generational theft.

I'm only attempting to educate idiots that it is a failure. It is bankrupt. The only real fix is privatization, which will include some reconciling. I'm even for a certain level of mean testing in doing so. For what ever reason, you ignorantly believe SS is a welfare program the rich owe the poor, which is complete nonsense.

 

No.

I'm sure you support trickle down policies. 1% apologists do.

Unlike you, I am not motivated by greed. I fight to preserve the American middle class from the steady encroachment of their livelihoods by the richest. Unlie you, I don't think it is justified to have policies which redistribute so much more of the nation's income and wealth to so few.

 

I have no idea what "trickle down policies" are, but if they oppose the confiscation of my neighbor's property, then I am all in favor. Unlike yourself, I consider initiating encroachments against my neighbor or his property to be unethical. I am not buying your arguments for politically supporting such uncivilized behavior.

I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken if you think I'm motivated by greed. Unlike you, I have no desire to use violence to plunder my fellow man. You appear to be the one motivated by greed, as you advocate the use of violence in order to achieve the ends you consider valuable.

You seem to be the one advocating for redistribution. I don't advocate any confiscation of property, so I can't possibly be considered to be advocating redistribution.

 

The only wealth distribution Eriemon desires is directly by a government. He defends the massive theft of the lower and middle class by the government, but then ignorantly blames wealth disparity on the rich. He sadly is addicted to the sin of coveting.

 

The don't. They're just designed to redistribute wealth from working Americans to the richest.

I consider it unethical too. You're repeating yourself.

Could be I'm sorely mistaken. But I doubt it.

No, I want to end the redistribution of income and wealth from the working people to the very richest. Middle class working Americans are getting a smaller and smaller share of the nation's income and wealth which is being redistributed to the richest, the top 1% of whom are now getting about 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth, double since the Reagan trickle down Revoluton. I'm not in favor of redistributing more income and wealth from working Americans to the richest. Are you?

- - - Updated - - -

Quite the contray, I defend stopping the massive theft of income and wealth from the middle classes by the richest.

And its Iriemon, not Eiremon. Intentional bastedization of the someone's handle is against the rules. I could think of a few appropriate things to call you. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. It keeps tens of millions of seniors off the streets.

Its only a "failure" because the politicians robbed the trust fund to give tax privileges to the richest. Time to reverse course.

 

I'm not anywhere near the top 1% and I'm doing just fine. Difference is that, while I do not covet the rich I do save and invest as they do. The government is the only entity stealing from the mythical ""99%"" you worship. I guess when one worships government they are blind to the truth.

I did not intentionally misspell your handle, I was just too lazy to find it for spelling purposes. My opologies.

Americans having private accounts to live on and leave to their posterity would allow them to participate in sharing the wealth, while living better standards of life. Your ideology is blinding you to believe that without SS, people would be living in the streets.

Yet, you continue to worship the idiots who steal from the lower and middle class who need their disposable income for investing and not government plunder. You really should give an honest look at privatization.

 

When you say "redistribution", do you mean the act of taking from one person and giving to another? If so, I oppose such a policy. Unlike yourself, I don't agree with violently confiscating my neighbor's property and giving it to others.

 

So do I.

No it's not. If it's stealing, its the government that has stolen the wealth produced by the middle classes and redistributed to the richest.

No problem.

It's ridiculous to assume that without SS, all the old folks would magically be fine.

Yet ou continue to worship the idiots who steal from the lower and middle class who need their disposable income for investing and not government plunder. You really should give an honest look at trickle down.

 

I mean income that was earned by the middle class is being redistributed to the wealthiest by "trickle down" policies.

 

Yes, but I'm trying to clarify exactly what you mean by "redistributed". The standard definition is that it entails taking money (or other good) from one person and giving it to another. If that is what you mean, then I entirely oppose such acts. I consider it unethical to take my neighbor's property in order to dole it out to others.

It sounds to me like you are the one who is in favor of redistribution. You want to take your neighbor's property and dole it out.

 

What I mean is that policies and practices since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution have resulted in the suppression of middle incomes and wealth and the explosion of income and wealth of the very richest.

Since the Reagan trickle down revolution policies have become du jour, the share of the nation's income going to the bottom 90% of Americans has dropped from 65% to 50%. Meanwhile, the share of the nation's income going to the top 1% has increased from 10% to 20%.

These policies have resulted in a huge redistribution of income and wealth from the middle classes to the richest Americans.

You are the one supporting this redistribution of income and wealth to the richest from the middle classes.

It is well past time to reverse trickle down policies.

 

In what way do these policies take the property of the middle class and redistribute it to the very richest. For example, I am in the middle class. How is property taken from me and given to the very richest?

 

In 1981, when Reagan was elected, he rode in on a conservative wave of reform that came to be know as the Reagan revolution. While his handlers avoided calling his programs "trickle down" publicly (thought is OMB director acknowledged they were just that) instead giving them gimmicky names like "supply side" economics, the thrust of his programs were designed to make the rich richer in this country. Tax policy was certainly central in this. Under the Reagan administration, top income tax rates the richest paid dropped from 70% to just 28%. Meanwhile, taxes that working people mostly pay, the FICA taxes, increased from 8.1% in 1980 to 15.02% (these are the total taxes including what the employer pays directly for the employee) in 1988, am 85% increase.

But taxes were not the only policy that had an effect. The Reagan "trickle down" revolution also encompassed a policy of disempowering and demonizing unions (famously propagated with the air traffic controllers unions busting), suppressing the minimum wage (not raised once during the Reagan administration, despite 43% inflation during the Reagan administration) and cutting and/or not enforcing business regulation, suppressing FLSA application of overtime pay, and cutting back on benefits to the poorer. These things all had an effect of suppressing middle class wages while dramatically increasing the incomes of the owners. As a result there has been a huge redistribution of income and wealth from the middle classes to the richest.

 

But you haven't explained how my property was taken from me and given to the very richest. What was taken from me, and who received that money?

 

Please quote my post where I stated that "your property was taken from you and given to the very richest."

Or take your straw man elsewhere.

 

You raised the subject of redistribution, i.e. "distribute (something) differently or again, typically to achieve greater social equality".

I then asked in what way the Reagan policies you mentioned redistributed from the middle class to the very wealthy. How did the policies take my property (I'm middle class) and give it to the very wealthy?

You seem very confused. Are you saying that my middle-class property was taken in order to be redistributed to the very rich, or not?

 

I'm not confused at all. My posts are quite clear.

Please quote my post where I stated that "your property was taken from you and given to the very richest."

Or take your straw man elsewhere.