@Anonymous: Step 1: Debt-spend on house, debt-spend on business
Step 2: Lose house, lose business
Step 3: Debt-spend on house, debt-spend on business
Step 4: Lose house, lose business, lose wife (?)
Step 5: Become meme
Step 6:
Step 7: Profit

"These are not rants against the system. They're not anarchist manifestos. They're not calls for a revolution. They're small stories of people who played by the rules, did what they were told, and now have nothing to show for it,"

@Anonymous: It's not that we're not compassionate...it's that we don't like people that blame their problems on other people, such as the wealthy. Just because they've either lucked out in life or worked their way to the top, it's no difference to me. I could be off a lot worse, look at some of the other countries in the world I could've been born into; I could weigh 70lbs and be covered in flies. I'll make the best of what I got and keep striving to be better. I'm too busy working right now to sit outside an office building in New York protesting with a bunch of smelly annoying people.

Can we all grow up and stop buying into this whole "99% vs 1%" nonsense the liberal politicians and organizers have been feeding us? I don't know about most of you, but I'm not a follower and like to make educated decisions myself.

This is all class warfare by definition. Look it up. Marxists have been using this as a tactic to separate us into different groups so they can control us for their political purposes. It's in Chapter 1 of the communist manifesto.

Very simply put, there are no classes in the United States. There is no line drawn between rich and middle class. If you can prove there's a middle class in US, I'll give you a cookie. Once you realize the truth, you'll be able to see past these stupid tricks and laugh at clowns like Michael Moore, Stephen Lerner and the rest of these goons.

Read more about truth of the "1%": http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8759

@Anonymous: sowat.jpg

While parts of what you say might ring true: yeah its a tad unfair to separate out a small group for unwarranted attention, you are focused on what is a minor portion of the argument. Most people ( put that in quotes ) can put that aside on an interpersonal level. "oh there is no class structure in the good ol you ess of A" is quite simply denial of the Powell memo fueled assault that have been systematically tearing apart the 'good ol you ess of A' for over a generation, leaving in their wake a stinking pile of corporatized plutocracy.

If you think that there are no classes, you probably haven't had to spend any time outside of your own insular little fantasy world propped up by your very own class position.

Also, Cato institute doesn't count as any sort of evidence, its a known mouthpiece for conservative bullshit.

You want to see something so ludicrous I'm shocked it wasn't written in crayon...read the Occupy WallStreet Proposed 'List of Demands" http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Probably the funniest thing I've read all day.

@Anonymous: I really have no idea what you're trying to say in your incoherent babbling but once again, you can't answer the question. If there are classes in the US, define a 'middle class.'

@Anonymous: Babbling, hardly incoherent.

I wasn't attempting to answer any question, and I have no desire to provide you answer (even if I could).

I was just riffing on your smelly attempt at misdirection.

@Anonymous:
One of the central tenets of objectivism is essentially "do no harm." Thus it is completely ridiculous to even imply that Rand supported Hickman's crime in any way. However, evil men can still espouse favorable traits, such as individuality, determination, conviction, etc.
Cool ad hominem attack though, it'd probably be good enough for a high school debate team.

@Anonymous: And yet, every time an idea has ever been espoused by a Collectivist, she immediately labelled it as garbage because she believed ideas from such men can never be worth considering. She railed on Kant a lot but stopped reading his works, dismissing them out of hand because they came from them.

How then does it jive that only she can use ad hominem attacks? Cool double-standards, bro.

@Anonymous: Check your premises, second-hander. Rand used ad hominem attacks all the time. Where is your contempt for her fallacies?

For example, Rand on evolution: "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis."

From this a whole slew of insults can be derived, like calling her an uneducated imbecile, a slovenly thinker, a slow-witted dullard, or a psuedo-intellectual troglodyte. Of course, those things would be unfair to say, and they would fall under the same heading of ad hominem. Still, if you are going to judge others by their ad hominem attacks, you should judge your idols by the same standard, no?

@Anonymous: No classes? I come from a wealthy family, "1%" wealthy? Hell no, but wealthy. I slacked off in school, but still go into a prestigious and expensive high school where I slacked off a lot more. My dad then paid for all my schooling at an expensive and prestigious university where I slacked off more. I was then given a nice job because of family connections. Can you honestly tell me that someone who is not as lucky as me would be able to do all I did? Do I deserve all I have? No. There are classes, and my class has had it too easy.

America has low taxes? News to me. 30% and above is considered pretty high where I come from

So much RAGE in this thread.

@Anonymous: Thanks for the article. Just to confirm: Are state taxes in addition to federal?

And no, I don't come from any of those countries. Also I'm in no shape or form an objectivist. I find it funny that rational people would still believe in it specially the one described by Rand. While it's premise is correct, it fails miserably in taking into account even basic economics.

I personally don't know much about Rand as a person but to claim her theory/philosophy is relevant with our knowledge of economics is quite uninformed.

@Anonymous: I don't believe local taxes are included, as that varies state to state. Some states do not have sales taxes and the like. If we were to include all of that we'd need to further add things like fuel, property, levies... it becomes unwieldly. I think it is fair to leave those out, however, because most other nations have local taxes in addition to the national ones.

As for Rand, I don't disagree with her methodology, but the conclusions she has made ignore or are ignorant of a tremendous body of science and even simple observation, so I can only assume that Objectivists are on par with her knowledge of these subjects.

That is to say, woefully uneducated.

@Anonymous: I wasn't talking about those kind of taxes. They are mentioned separately in the wiki article. I refer to this: 0-35% (federal) 0-10.55% (states) personal taxes for the US. If someone has to pay 45%+ taxes it is quite ridiculous.

Though it is interesting to note that in countries which have high taxation there are many expenses (done by individuals in other countries) which are taken care of by the government. (such as healthcare, education and whatnot)

So tax does not reduce the common man's disposable income greatly. Hence it has little effect on the common man, not so advantageous for the very rich and great for the poor.

But these countries don't have such a large GDP. So corporations are not so attracted to them. Yet they maintain almost comparable GDP/Capita. And have higher standards of living.

All this implies their level of taxation is good for the common man.

Though one has to consider effective use of taxes as well. I believe the US has a need to spend more on things that don't improve it's citizens' standard of living than these countries (specially military spending IMO) so having a larger total amount of GDP is quite vital.

But all this assumes that there would be a government looking after the interests of the masses and common man.

Though as I said before, the chief failure of those incharge in the US has been to regulate it's financial industries which take great risks (at the cost of the people and not their own) and have consistently tried to inflate demand artificially. Basically unreasonable and unsustainable credit financing.

And looking deeper, it boils down to fact that the government doesn't do enough to protect the interests of the average masses.

@Anonymous: That doesn't make you rich or lucky, it makes you sound like a douche.

@Anonymous: Not the guy you replied to but it happens alot. How many kids of rich parents get into ivy league colleges while they seem hardly deserving to attend them? And how many of them would have gotten in were it not for their parents' money?

It needs pointing out however that it is not entirely wrong to benefit from the wealth of your parent. To want your kid to do better because of your hardwork is a biological imperative.

The problem lies in the fact that the rich (or rather rich institutions) have become so powerful that the ill-consequences of their risks are borne by the masses while they gain from the upside of taking that risk.

It also needs pointing out that ranting against the well paid few (sportsmen, CEOs etc.) is not valid as their absurd incomes are justified by economic forces of supply and demand.

@Anonymous: Welcome to the world my friend. Douches get breaks and good guys are left only able to call them douches.

This is how most (level-headed) adults view the WallStreet Protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nme2_z5Xn3Y

I'll make a point by plagiarizing song lyrics

In times like the seventies, the broken down economy
Meant even the upper tier was needing some help.

You've got a generation raised on the welfare state,
Enjoyed all its benefits and did just great,
But as soon as they were settled as the richest of the rich,
They kicked away the ladder, told the rest of us that life's a bitch.

@Anonymous: "justified because of the economic forces of supply and demand"

is a bit of a moving goalpost of an argument. Particularly for the sports one, seeing the MASSIVE rise in college sports popularity recently.

I may be misquoting him, but I remember Herman Cain saying something like: if you succeed its due to yourself and the contribution of those around you, but if you fail you are the only one to blame or something like that.

yeah, its not ALWAYS true, but it does bring up an often overlooked, yet extremely vital mechanism of success that is not only inherent to humanity as a species, but is found throughout primates, and thats a li'l thing called teamwork (more or less)

and in light of the (generally true) idiom of "power corrupts" or frank herbert's twist, "power attracts the corruptable" its a wonder how many people take a gamble at people with power, and no guarantee that said power can/will be removed, as opposed to politicians who have a finite taste of power, and go into their positions knowing that. though to be fair, whether they remember that or not is completely different.

anyways, as long as humans are involved, there is a near guarantee of someone fucking it up, i just personally prefer the system that recognizes that and tries to correct for it.

@Anonymous: Bush made his mistakes, but Obama's health care and "job creation" plan will screw us over just the same.