Originally posted by no1marauderIf you are going to assign guilt you will need to be more specific about what you mean by "the rich". Is this all people over x income or all people over x amount accumulated wealth?
This is a phony dichotomy. That the rich run the government in the US is a given. But that shouldn't make them objects of sympathy when the government, in response to overwhelming popular demand, insist that something be done to stop them from the further theft of society's resources done to the detriment of the rest of its members.
When I ...[text shortened]... sense about how "unfair" the AIG clowns were treated, I can only laugh at your foolishness.
Using your rationale I put it to you that "the poor" steal just as much.
Society does not own resources, individuals and groups of individuals own resources.
I am as opposed to state sponsored corporate welfare as any other welfare.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't care one wit about the rich, I care about a level playing field
This is a phony dichotomy. That the rich run the government in the US is a given. But that shouldn't make them objects of sympathy when the government, in response to overwhelming popular demand, insist that something be done to stop them from the further theft of society's resources done to the detriment of the rest of its members.
When I sense about how "unfair" the AIG clowns were treated, I can only laugh at your foolishness.
and when a contract if signed by two parties that is that, when the
Congress passes a law and the President signs it allowing something
to occur that too settles it. It isn't the fault of AIG that the government
did a piss poor job in passing the law they did, it is the governments
fault. There were several chances to stop, block, or limit those bonuses
but no one did it. Those bonuses were blocked and Dodd got them
back in, Dodd and anyone else who helped make that happen should
be made to pay for that Republican or Democrat it matters not. What
is at stake here is that our government becomes knee jerk where
nothing is defined by rule of law, what we get will be the passion of the
moment, you will not be able to trust anything as a solid agreement
between two parties. Even our Constituion is just a contract.
Kelly
Originally posted by WajomaSociety is a group of individuals. That group of individuals collectively determine what the rules are for the ownership of resources within the area that the society controls. There has never been and will never be such a creature as economic ownership outside of society.
If you are going to assign guilt you will need to be more specific about what you mean by "the rich". Is this all people over x income or all people over x amount accumulated wealth?
Using your rationale I put it to you that "the poor" steal just as much.
Society does not own resources, individuals and groups of individuals own resources.
I am as opposed to state sponsored corporate welfare as any other welfare.
You may make whatever stupid statement you please, but no one knowledgeable would assert that the poor steal as much as the rich. Bernie Magdoff probably stole more than all the poor in the US have in the last 50 years on his own.
By whatever definition you please, there is a small percentage of the population who hold a large amount of the wealth and income in the US. These are the same people who wield the greatest influence over public policy. Anyone who believes or pretends to believe otherwise is either misinformed or disingenuous.
Originally posted by no1marauderI DO NOT CARE WHO GOT THEM! I care about the process in place that
You don't know what you are talking about. AIG didn't, and indeed still hasn't, revealed which employees were getting these ridiculous "retention payments" and their full extent. The idea that a bankrupt company would pay out $153 million in bonuses (to be paid from taxpayer money) probably never crossed anybody's mind. Such payments were never authorize ...[text shortened]... is the type of bizarre "thinking" that right wingers use. It is, of course, senseless.
gave them the bonuses, was it a contract yes, did it have anything to
do with X, I don't care what X was I only care that it was something that
both sides agreed too, and that Congress and the President also
signed off on. Beyond that if you or I think it was just that they should
have gotten the money is mute, they got what was agreed upon for
the reasons that the contract stated, and that Congress and the
President signed off on as well. You keep harping that it was unjust
to give them money, I agree it more than likely IS AN UNJUST thing
that they got the money, but worse is that the government can set
aside congracts between parties on a whim! You will no longer be able
to trust any agreement between anyone, it becomes something that
the government dislikes they can at will void it. If you are not allowed
to enter into agreements you may as well start calling everyone either
comrade or master because your freedom is gone. You may feel that
class envy is justified in taking away people's rights, but I don't.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's no sense in discussing it with you; you've read some right wing propaganda and will continue to parrot it no matter what facts are brought up to you. I've already shown that A) Contracts can be voided because of economic conditions i.e. bankruptcy (among other things); B) That AIG has refused to disclose information regarding the "retention payments"; C) That there may well have been legal remedies available to stop the retention payments based on the LAW. You have chosen to ignore those facts and spew out buzzword propaganda. This is your standard MO. So be it.
I don't care one wit about the rich, I care about a level playing field
and when a contract if signed by two parties that is that, when the
Congress passes a law and the President signs it allowing something
to occur that too settles it. It isn't the fault of AIG that the government
did a piss poor job in passing the law they did, it is the governments ...[text shortened]... ing as a solid agreement
between two parties. Even our Constituion is just a contract.
Kelly
The Constitution isn't "just a contract", either.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom No1 "That the rich run the government in the US is a given. But that shouldn't make them objects of sympathy when the government, in response to overwhelming popular demand, insist that something be done to stop them from the further theft of society's resources done to the detriment of the rest of its members."
Society is a group of individuals. That group of individuals collectively determine what the rules are for the ownership of resources within the area that the society controls. There has never been and will never be such a creature as economic ownership outside of society.
You may make whatever stupid statement you please, but no one kno ...[text shortened]... icy. Anyone who believes or pretends to believe otherwise is either misinformed or disingenuous.
It's not "by whatever definition you please" it's by whatever reasonable definition you can provide and how you can reasonably call all those within that definition thieves. You see if you do not provide a reasonable definition then I don't need to either and by the time you tally up all the stolen pens, the not so sick sick days claimed, the extra 5 minutes tacked onto morning smoko, the hours spent cruising the net, answering emails and playing chess on the company computer and on the company time, ooops came in a bit late Monday morning forgot to alter my time sheet, etc etc of on going theft, we're looking at billions.
It would be a lot more than just plain ridiculous to place that blame on all poor people, but it would be just as ridiculous as you No1 assigning guilt to anyone holding a certain amount of wealth.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are being disingenuous; it isn't that the contract cannot be voided
There's no sense in discussing it with you; you've read some right wing propaganda and will continue to parrot it no matter what facts are brought up to you. I've already shown that A) Contracts can be voided because of economic conditions i.e. bankruptcy (among other things); B) That AIG has refused to disclose information regarding the "retention payme ...[text shortened]... andard MO. So be it.
The Constitution isn't "just a contract", either.
but there has to be a reason, you not liking it isn’t good enough! No
one said that the courts couldn’t make that happen, that is due process.
What did happen is that they government didn't send them to court,
they went after them personally. Had the courts gotten involved, great
that happens all the time, at least everyone gets a say. What you are
seeing here is the beginning of tyranny in America where the
government sets itself against it’s people, and you are a Kool-Aid
drinking parrot for them. It started with Bush forcing banks against
their will to take bail out money, and now Obama is starting to twist it
into something else, a great power grab.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're insane if you believe this:
You are being disingenuous; it isn't that the contract cannot be voided
but there has to be a reason, you not liking it isn’t good enough! No
one said that the courts couldn’t make that happen, that is due process.
What did happen is that they government didn't send them to court,
they went after them personally. Had the courts gotten involved, great
t ...[text shortened]... money, and now Obama is starting to twist it
into something else, a great power grab.
Kelly
KJ: It started with Bush forcing banks against
their will to take bail out money,
Are you fricking serious?
There would be a very good reason to void the "retention payments" as I've already patiently explained to you. AIG is insolvent and would be bankrupt but for the US taxpayer propping them up. Contracts that are economically detrimental to the bankrupt company get voided all the time. But you refuse to listen instead raving about "kool aid drinking". You sound like a nut.
Originally posted by WajomaIn this case, I was referring to the people at AIG who authorized bonuses to themselves and other top level employees (please read the exchange). I didn't suggest that everyone who was rich is a thief.
From No1 "That the rich run the government in the US is a given. But that shouldn't make them objects of sympathy when the government, in response to overwhelming popular demand, insist that something be done to stop them from the further theft of society's resources done to the detriment of the rest of its members."
It's not "by whatever definition ...[text shortened]... as ridiculous as you No1 assigning guilt to anyone holding a certain amount of wealth.