(04-01-2024, 08:42 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(04-01-2024, 07:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

I'm all ears regarding how Congress needs to reclaim more of its power from the executive.  There are a few reasons I want that to happen.  The Supreme Court also wants that to happen.

Make no mistake though, the rich have the greatest say about who controls Congress, just like they have the greatest say about who becomes President.  Your narrative about billionaires doesn't really factor into most of what you wrote here.

Absolutely it does, but you have to be able to connect dots, and I get tired of wasting energy on your lack of ability.

---

(04-01-2024, 08:42 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(04-01-2024, 07:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

So what is the line for Shad Khan to no longer profit from his invention?

I have told you what I think. I am for free market capitalism up to a certain point, then I think the highest earners need to be tethered to the lowest earners. I don't have a number for that. Any line you make is going to be arbitrary. I mean, it would be until you've collected data, which is impossible to do in our current state. 

We already have limitations on how much he can profit based on the current patent system, which I'm sure you're opposed to as well. 

Allowing people to become disproportionately rich will disproportionately tilt the balance of power in their favor. It has to be capped at some point or you cannot have a republic. Not a fair one, at least.

---