Key,
We read what you said. You don't need to repeat it. I asked why it's your business and how it harms you.
You then go on to make things up about banking, which you clearly do not understand. You make it further awkward by informing us that you have made poor financial decisions in your life and have no even moderately valued skill set. You make things further awkward by informing us that your entire family makes poor decisions, both financial and personal, and that all of you lack marketable skills.
"I get by. The wealthy, want to cry about unequal tax representation? "
We're discussing principles and economic best-practices. You're crying.
"Don't really care, because we have no one in power that really gives a shit."
Can't argue with you there.
"All they spout is "equal rights for 100% of americans." Geeze we get taxed and churches and corporations reap tax-exemption status?"
Again, can't argue with you here. Do they actually claim to want equal rights? That's laughable. I don't disagree that the power structure in DC (which is bought buy many of the wealthy) is horribly corrupt. What I disagree with is speaking as if all of the wealthy and upper-middle-class are guilty of buying power in DC. While many do I and join you in condemnation of their corrupt practices, not all of the rich or even wealthy are guilty of this corruption and I take issue with speaking of their money as if it's _all_ ill-begotten and we, therefore, have the right to steal every penny we can get our hands on.
You are, to me, like one of the occupy communists--You probably are. 
While I agree with you on many of the problems you mentioned (those that you understand enough to put into a coherent sentence, anyway), you want a communist government solution, I want a libertarian free-market solution. Our agreement is 100% on the problem, 0% on the appropriate solutions.
The Riddler,
It's easier to slack off and cry later.
xeno syndicated,
"Most of the income the rich get, they don't get from working. The poor and middle class do. So who needs to get off their lazy asses and do some real work, then?"
The poor and middle class, if they want more money, obviously. Duh?
The rich have money because they earned it in a free market. (At least they should--let's pretend, for a moment, apathetic voters will ever shape up and stop electing corrupt trash) Because they provided things that the world wanted, the world payed them with money. Now, they don't need to work more, if they don't want to, because they already worked disproportionately more than your lazy ass.
This is capitalism. This is fair. If you don't like it, stop buying all of the awesome products that make people rich. There's a reason people in Cuba, North Korea, and China don't have the awesome things we have: They're not compensated for developing and producing them. As a result, they don't have them.
That you even have a computer or access to one and claim to hate free markets is hypocritical.
""ANYONE can get a college degree and land a better paying job"
This is a lie.
You need the money and opportunity for this. Most people don't have the money or the opportunity. AND most of the few that do don't land a well-paying job even after they graduate."
This is false. Community colleges are inexpensive, and one can attain grants and scholarships (I applied for many and got a few. Suck my nuts, lazy bum.). You don't "have" the money or the opportunity, you borrow the money at 0% interest (subsidized student loans) and make the opportunity. Most that do find a well-paying job, because they're not lazy and they keep looking until they do.
You sound really lazy, pessimistic, and ignorant for someone posting on a politics forum about justice and earnings. If you're doing something like frying fries at 40, maybe the problem is you.
"Employers expect their candidates to have taken all the risk of investing in their education and / or training, so the employer can reap all the rewards of that investment."
In exchange for fair pay. If they don't offer fair pay, anyone working for them is an idiot who should work for somebody else.
You're implying that employers should risk investing in the education of people not providing any service (work) for them. You're implying that workers and employers should be bound even before they establish a mutually beneficial (and voluntary) relationship. We have a word for the controls and ownership you're advocating in the west: It's called "slavery." And it's evil, you ignorant bum.
"Training the employee should be at the employer's expense because they, the employer, reaps the profits generated by that investment."
Employers do train employees. But they don't hire fry cooks to design products or manage personnel. Any employee who is worth more than he's being payed can show his accomplishments on his resume and find higher paying work elsewhere. The free market is epic, fair, and just in this way. I can tell you're starting to love its principles.
Zarf BeebleBrix,
Sometimes being nice to someone involves telling them they're doing something wrong. If someone does 0 work, probably doesn't bathe, picks his nose, and cries a lot in public, we'd only be hurting him (aka being mean) to smile and tell him he's doing a good job!
xeno syndicated,
"Will you talk that way at the state legislature?"
If he's honest and cares about his constituents, he will.
"Consider yourself ignored, again, Einstein."
You just conceded that he won the argument.
Congratulations, Einstein!
"Everyone can? This is logically impossible. Decent enough? This is vague. A comfortable life? Again, too vague. Could you clarify your statement?"
What he's saying is essentially that WE DID IT. Stop crying, you ignorant monkey. We have firsthand knowledge of how possible it is. That it isn't easy and requires some wisdom and hard work does not make it impossible. Pimply-faced kids telling adults that what they did is impossible gets old. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, so we're baffled as to why you keep talking.
"You've said you are a Christian, Einstein, yet you equate having a low income with hell."
Figurative language. Your citation of Luke is retarded. The point of that passage is that a good life requires one to be compassionate and care about his fellow man. Obviously, being wealthy and going to your grave with that wealth indicates a lack of this compassion. This has absolutely nothing to do with what opportunities the poor do or do not have, nor how hard it is for them to achieve X, Y, or Z in life without such compassion by others.
"I do not covet other people's things."
Hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahha! Good one!
"It just makes it seem like you have no better response to the idea besides personal attacks."
When all of your statements are based in being a lazy person who can't achieve success, sometimes it's hard to ask if your position (perpetual failure is what you describe as the only thing the poor can achieve) is based on your own personal shortcomings. You're positive that what some of us have done is impossible, so we're forced to ask if you believe this, perhaps, because it's impossible for you with your current work ethic, intelligence, and goals.
