Jamie Dimon, Mitt Romney, and Jesus Play Monopoly

[AZGrizFan]

I don't buy that at all. The current "occupy" movement or even that we're talking about this is because there's a solid segment of the middle class that believe the exact opposite and that the rich (the 1%) are the root of all the problems of the world. Like I said, people don't need a lot of help to envy or hate someone else.

To be fair, it is understandable that the 1% get more flak since they have much more influence than the poor or middle class.

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

[Chizzang]

To be fair, it is understandable that the 1% get more flak since they have much more influence than the poor or middle class.

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

You'll want to "refine that statement" a little bit...
History is littered with examples of "The Rich" getting the French Revolution treatment or worse

[Ibanez]

To be fair, it is understandable that the 1% get more flak since they have much more influence than the poor or middle class.

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

In essence, I feel the same way. I bust my ass at work to get ahead, improve my skills and value to the company. It's how I feel that I can work towards a comfortable life. It's a shame people want things handed to them. It's not the American Dream.

[Grizalltheway]

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

You'll want to "refine that statement" a little bit...
History is littered with examples of "The Rich" getting the French Revolution treatment or worse

Z don't need no stinkin history books. He already knows everything.

[kalm]

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

In essence, I feel the same way. I bust my ass at work to get ahead, improve my skills and value to the company. It's how I feel that I can work towards a comfortable life. It's a shame people want things handed to them. It's not the American Dream.

I work my ass off because that's how I was raised and that's what I was taught by those that mentored me. I like rolling my sleeves up and getting shit done because it's the right thing to do. I require zero motivation from the rich and I honestly pity those who do.

[AZGrizFan]

You'll want to "refine that statement" a little bit...
History is littered with examples of "The Rich" getting the French Revolution treatment or worse

Z don't need no stinkin history books. He already knows everything.

Now yer learnin'.

[AZGrizFan]

In essence, I feel the same way. I bust my ass at work to get ahead, improve my skills and value to the company. It's how I feel that I can work towards a comfortable life. It's a shame people want things handed to them. It's not the American Dream.

I work my ass off because that's how I was raised and that's what I was taught by those that mentored me. I like rolling my sleeves up and getting shit done because it's the right thing to do. I require zero motivation from the rich and I honestly pity those who do.

Same here. But it ain't pity I feel for those who are envious.

[kalm]

I work my ass off because that's how I was raised and that's what I was taught by those that mentored me. I like rolling my sleeves up and getting shit done because it's the right thing to do. I require zero motivation from the rich and I honestly pity those who do.

Same here. But it ain't pity I feel for those who are envious.

Wait…

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

Everyone wants a better lifestyle. Everyone SHOULD want a level playing field.

[Ivytalk]

Jesus takes the railroads and the utilities...and wins.

[Chizzang]

Jesus takes the railroads and the utilities...and wins.

ah... the slow death at the hands of the Railroad tycoon ($200)

[CID1990]

Same here. But it ain't pity I feel for those who are envious.

Wait…

Envy of the rich used to be displayed by a desire to work harder to be richer. Now it's displayed by complete hatred.

Everyone wants a better lifestyle. Everyone SHOULD want a level playing field.

Except that for liberals, the very existence of an upper class is evidence that the playing field is not level.

[kalm]

Jesus takes the railroads and the utilities...and wins.

[kalm]

Wait…




Everyone wants a better lifestyle. Everyone SHOULD want a level playing field.

Except that for liberals, the very existence of an upper class is evidence that the playing field is not level.

Nice one, JSO!

[CID1990]

Except that for liberals, the very existence of an upper class is evidence that the playing field is not level.

Nice one, JSO!

Please.

People have been uptight and jealous about other peoples' wealth since the beginning of time

do you really think that there is some magic point at which the whiners will say "ok the playing field is level, we're happy now."?


level playing field smh

[Ivytalk]

Nice one, JSO!

Please.

People have been uptight and jealous about other peoples' wealth since the beginning of time
do you really think that there is some magic point at which the whiners will say "ok the playing field is level, we're happy now."?


level playing field smh

"Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!"

[kalm]

Nice one, JSO!

Please.

People have been uptight and jealous about other peoples' wealth since the beginning of time

do you really think that there is some magic point at which the whiners will say "ok the playing field is level, we're happy now."?


level playing field smh

No. Do you really think entrenched power is healthy for the free market?

[UNI88]

Please.

People have been uptight and jealous about other peoples' wealth since the beginning of time

do you really think that there is some magic point at which the whiners will say "ok the playing field is level, we're happy now."?

level playing field smh

No. Do you really think entrenched power is healthy for the free market?

Please define level playing field? IMO you're never going to get people to even agree on what a level playing field is. To many a level playing field would mean a 100% inheritance tax so that no one gets the advantage of inheriting money that their ancestors earned. Is that fair to the ancestors to not allow them to pass on the fruits of their labor? The reality is that the wealthy should be able to give their kids an inheritance and access to a private education and other advantages if they choose to do so.

IMO it's not about a level playing field. A level playing field is a pipe dream. The objective shouldn't be an equal starting point (or even equal outcomes which seems to be some liberals objective) but reasonable opportunities. Opportunities can lead to hope which can lead to effort and that's what we need. Even then some aren't going to jump at the opportunity so we can't be afraid to leave them behind.

And living in the Chicago area, charter schools are an excellent example of increasing opportunities that are opposed by many liberals. Why do they oppose them? The teacher's union doesn't like them and they argue that the kids left behind are disadvantaged when the higher achievers are pulled from their public schools.

[Chizzang]

No. Do you really think entrenched power is healthy for the free market?

Please define level playing field? IMO you're never going to get people to even agree on what a level playing field is. To many a level playing field would mean a 100% inheritance tax so that no one gets the advantage of inheriting money that their ancestors earned. Is that fair to the ancestors to not allow them to pass on the fruits of their labor? The reality is that the wealthy should be able to give their kids an inheritance and access to a private education and other advantages if they choose to do so.

IMO it's not about a level playing field. A level playing field is a pipe dream. The objective shouldn't be an equal starting point (or even equal outcomes which seems to be some liberals objective) but reasonable opportunities. Opportunities can lead to hope which can lead to effort and that's what we need. Even then some aren't going to jump at the opportunity so we can't be afraid to leave them behind.

And living in the Chicago area, charter schools are an excellent example of increasing opportunities that are opposed by many liberals. Why do they oppose them? The teacher's union doesn't like them and they argue that the kids left behind are disadvantaged when the higher achievers are pulled from their public schools.

Liberals are against Charter Schools..?
The Charter School system Passed in Seattle / and Seattle is a bastion of the Liberal stronghold
I think you're confusing union thuggery run rampant (Chicago) with Liberal Ideology



True there is some overlap there but the Thinking Liberal (Go ahead and laugh) doesn't give much credence to the old Union Mythology in todays world

Just like I would argue that the Thinking Conservative
doesn't get involved in the Pro-Choice / Pro-Life argument because of the trap door of LESS GOVERNMENT / LESS GOVERNMENT / LESS GOVERNMENT except when it hurts my feelings, then I want more govt.

[kalm]

No. Do you really think entrenched power is healthy for the free market?

Please define level playing field? IMO you're never going to get people to even agree on what a level playing field is. To many a level playing field would mean a 100% inheritance tax so that no one gets the advantage of inheriting money that their ancestors earned. Is that fair to the ancestors to not allow them to pass on the fruits of their labor? The reality is that the wealthy should be able to give their kids an inheritance and access to a private education and other advantages if they choose to do so.

IMO it's not about a level playing field. A level playing field is a pipe dream. The objective shouldn't be an equal starting point (or even equal outcomes which seems to be some liberals objective) but reasonable opportunities. Opportunities can lead to hope which can lead to effort and that's what we need. Even then some aren't going to jump at the opportunity so we can't be afraid to leave them behind.

And living in the Chicago area, charter schools are an excellent example of increasing opportunities that are opposed by many liberals. Why do they oppose them? The teacher's union doesn't like them and they argue that the kids left behind are disadvantaged when the higher achievers are pulled from their public schools.

Great points as usual '88, and I should have qualified my comment with "a more" level playing field. I totally agree in equality of opportunity vs. outcomes too (I actually think most liberals do).

To beat a dead horse, I think the main way in which you battle this is by severely limiting campaign finance. We are all supposed to be against government intervention into the free market, but right now you can literally buy favorable tax benefits, subsidies, and government contracts if you have enough money. As I've mentioned ad nauseum, private companies and individuals don't put $100's of millions into campaigns because they are stupid at doing business. This dramatically increases their opportunities and, through government, manipulates the market.

It's moving away from regulated capitalism and setting a course for fascism.

[UNI88]

Please define level playing field? IMO you're never going to get people to even agree on what a level playing field is. To many a level playing field would mean a 100% inheritance tax so that no one gets the advantage of inheriting money that their ancestors earned. Is that fair to the ancestors to not allow them to pass on the fruits of their labor? The reality is that the wealthy should be able to give their kids an inheritance and access to a private education and other advantages if they choose to do so.

IMO it's not about a level playing field. A level playing field is a pipe dream. The objective shouldn't be an equal starting point (or even equal outcomes which seems to be some liberals objective) but reasonable opportunities. Opportunities can lead to hope which can lead to effort and that's what we need. Even then some aren't going to jump at the opportunity so we can't be afraid to leave them behind.

And living in the Chicago area, charter schools are an excellent example of increasing opportunities that are opposed by many liberals. Why do they oppose them? The teacher's union doesn't like them and they argue that the kids left behind are disadvantaged when the higher achievers are pulled from their public schools.

Liberals are against Charter Schools..?
The Charter School system Passed in Seattle / and Seattle is a bastion of the Liberal stronghold
I think you're confusing union thuggery run rampant (Chicago) with Liberal Ideology



True there is some overlap there but the Thinking Liberal (Go ahead and laugh) doesn't give much credence to the old Union Mythology in todays world

Just like I would argue that the Thinking Conservative
doesn't get involved in the Pro-Choice / Pro-Life argument because of the trap door of LESS GOVERNMENT / LESS GOVERNMENT / LESS GOVERNMENT except when it hurts my feelings, then I want more govt.

Good catch ... let me qualify the comment by changing it to supposed liberals.

[UNI88]

Please define level playing field? IMO you're never going to get people to even agree on what a level playing field is. To many a level playing field would mean a 100% inheritance tax so that no one gets the advantage of inheriting money that their ancestors earned. Is that fair to the ancestors to not allow them to pass on the fruits of their labor? The reality is that the wealthy should be able to give their kids an inheritance and access to a private education and other advantages if they choose to do so.

IMO it's not about a level playing field. A level playing field is a pipe dream. The objective shouldn't be an equal starting point (or even equal outcomes which seems to be some liberals objective) but reasonable opportunities. Opportunities can lead to hope which can lead to effort and that's what we need. Even then some aren't going to jump at the opportunity so we can't be afraid to leave them behind.

And living in the Chicago area, charter schools are an excellent example of increasing opportunities that are opposed by many liberals. Why do they oppose them? The teacher's union doesn't like them and they argue that the kids left behind are disadvantaged when the higher achievers are pulled from their public schools.

Great points as usual '88, and I should have qualified my comment with "a more" level playing field. I totally agree in equality of opportunity vs. outcomes too (I actually think most liberals do).

To beat a dead horse, I think the main way in which you battle this is by severely limiting campaign finance. We are all supposed to be against government intervention into the free market, but right now you can literally buy favorable tax benefits, subsidies, and government contracts if you have enough money. As I've mentioned ad nauseum, private companies and individuals don't put $100's of millions into campaigns because they are stupid at doing business. This dramatically increases their opportunities and, through government, manipulates the market.

It's moving away from regulated capitalism and setting a course for fascism.

I'm not sure you can limit campaign finance and I'm not sure you want to limit it too much. If you do, can you also limit the ability of unions to throw people at campaigns? If not, do you risk a disproportionate increase in union influence on elections and thus politicians?

[kalm]

Great points as usual '88, and I should have qualified my comment with "a more" level playing field. I totally agree in equality of opportunity vs. outcomes too (I actually think most liberals do).

To beat a dead horse, I think the main way in which you battle this is by severely limiting campaign finance. We are all supposed to be against government intervention into the free market, but right now you can literally buy favorable tax benefits, subsidies, and government contracts if you have enough money. As I've mentioned ad nauseum, private companies and individuals don't put $100's of millions into campaigns because they are stupid at doing business. This dramatically increases their opportunities and, through government, manipulates the market.

It's moving away from regulated capitalism and setting a course for fascism.

I'm not sure you can limit campaign finance and I'm not sure you want to limit it too much. If you do, can you also limit the ability of unions to throw people at campaigns? If not, do you risk a disproportionate increase in union influence on elections and thus politicians?

Oh hell yes...limit union influence as well. Their role should be to negotiate with management, not manipulate government to do their bidding.

Congressmen spend half if not more of their time fundraising. It's called spending time with constituents.

It can be done.

[BlueHen86]

Jesus takes the railroads and the utilities...and wins.

The red properties are best, but he's Jesus, he would probably lose all his money and then declare himself the winner in the after-game.

[YoUDeeMan]

These kids wouldn't last two minutes in 'Merica. Holding hands and sharing leads to gay communism.

How's Africa doing lately...putting that wisdom to work?

[YoUDeeMan]

Please.

People have been uptight and jealous about other peoples' wealth since the beginning of time
do you really think that there is some magic point at which the whiners will say "ok the playing field is level, we're happy now."?


level playing field smh

"Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!"

I can't wait for my son to watch that movie. At 10, he probably won't understand enough of it...but the day is coming soon, very soon.