However, the super rich don't save that much. They invest it. Bill Gates doesn't have his tens of billions at hand. They are tied in his assets.

So, basically..... you leftists are saying....

The Rich have to much.... (for the life of me, I still dont get an explanation for what is "To much?)  So, lets use a central govt. to steal it from them, and pass it on to those that we (the Central Govt.) decree need it more.... (So, the Central Govt. Weenie can have as large a voting block as possible).

After all, if someone made a fortune on their for sight (Gates, Jobs, Dell, etc.)  They must be punished.....  Lets use the Govt. to break up their business, Fine them, or better.....lets tax the hell out of them.

If their family was a fortuitous enough to pass it on to their family (Carnage, Ford, Sears, etc.) then hell, they REALLY dont deserve it.  After all, they are just living fat for nothing...

Can any of you on the left answer me this.....

WHY is it that you all know what is best for everyone else ??
Who are you all to judge what one "Saves" or "Spends" or what their Net worth is ??
Who are you all to decide Who it is that needs, and who it is that should not have ??

Dont we have enough examples in history that show how a central Govt. with the power to decree what one has, or does not have, ..... or what one does, or does not do is a VERY DANGEROUS path to go down ??

Lets not be foolish in your repsponce...... I believe you know EXACTLY what it is that I am pointing out here. 
Idiots and morons need not reply.
I will decide who you are, as you post in response.

A quick answer is, in percentage of wealth the actual savings is different. A person below 1 million dollars has more money in 401k's (investment) and savings percentage wise than a person above 1 million dollars, statistically speaking, who will be more into stocks, bonds, commodities. They need less on hand since they have a guaranteed source of income of some sort at all times. Whether dividends, interest, or income they have it. They will have less sitting in a 'real savings account' percentage wise than anyone else. Plus they are much less likely to even worry about a savings, more often they have a platinum card they make all purchases on, which stimulates the credit companies. I sincerely doubt Bill Gates has carried cash around... for quite a while now.

Chelsea is rich from 3 factors, her family, her upbringing, her education. Upbringing does play an important factor in this, as I do not expect that bum I passed earlier today to be able to handle a job earning 100k a year, nor would I expect some punk arsed kid who thinks gangs are all that, and who's parents really do not try to be good parents.

First of all welcome back BW!

"Dont we have enough examples in history that show how a central Govt. with the power to decree what one has, or does not have, ..... or what one does, or does not do is a VERY DANGEROUS path to go down ??"

there are examples on how socialism failed yes. But no one here is demanding pure socialism. At least not us European leftists.
We just happen to live in a system where a mix of a lil socialism and capitalism is done.. and it is working very well.
Lets call it the european model. Where u have an economy based on a capitalistic system. with maybe more regulations then in the US. Ok. It still works. and it works very well. Germany is 3rd (maybe meanwhile passed by china so 4th) strongest economy in the world. We are using this "social market" since the 1950's. In the 1960's and 70's everyone was surprised of how well it worked. How well it kept our population away from tending to support communism. and how much wealth it got us.

"After all, if someone made a fortune on their for sight (Gates, Jobs, Dell, etc.)  They must be punished.....  Lets use the Govt. to break up their business, Fine them, or better.....lets tax the hell out of them."

Why punished? but how hard is it for a person that own Billion of $ and earns Millions of $ each year to give 100k or something like that each year to the goverment? HOW hard is that? Is it really punishment? What will be negative for Bill Gates if he has to pay a extra 100k goverment welfare?
or lets better say.. an aditional whatever.. 10% of his yearly income.
He will still be able to afford whatever he wants. He will not suffer any negative effect from it.
Maybe some of the people who get a few extra $ because of his contribution even will buy mictrosoft programs from it.

Again this is a question of the point of view. You may think having to give away money is unfair. because people who did not work for it may benefit from it. Because u grew up like this. I think its ok to contribute to the community. because i grew up with it.
Calling this the end of the US or a dangerous path is silly.

There are enough examples here which show that a social welfare state can really work good.. look at sweden.. norway.. the netherlands.. germany... they are all strong economies.. all great welfare states. Would you say europe is going a dangerous path?

"WHY is it that you all know what is best for everyone else ??"
We have maybe been told that by the same source that told G.W. Bush that the iraqis need and want to be freed and live in a democracy.
You supported this war i think.. so how did u know its better for iraqis?

"Who are you all to judge what one "Saves" or "Spends" or what their Net worth is ??"
This does not need to be judged.. it can be prooven empirically.

"Who are you all to decide Who it is that needs, and who it is that should not have ??"
you can set rules for this... keep people above the poverty line and such. Not much being needed to decide or judge once the rules are made.

if u would read what i said flint.... u even quoted it...

"extra 100k".. "additional 10%"

also i said it should be used to be redistributed to the poor.. which would directly reinvest it. Instead of saving it up.
Do you want to doubt the economy would benefit from that big time?

In the end it has same effect as a tax reduction.. just only for the other part of population..

>>Even in a democracy, you just don't mess with the elite<<

Ha ha ha.

Even in dictatorships people mess with the elite, but the elite are usually too stupid to realise it.  If they were so smart, why would they need to have guns, tanks, bombs, borders, yadda, yadda, yawn, yawn?

Let's take the example of a contractor who is hired to build a house for a rich guy (the contractor is also a rich guy by the way).  The laborer paving the driveway gets paid by the hour; the contractor get's paid for the entire job.  The laborer takes is bloody time if he isn't getting paid well enough.  What happens is the contractor ends up having to go to the house-owner and ask for more money to finish the job because it is taking longer than expected.  The homeowner declines; the contractor cancels the job; the homeowner takes the contractor to court; the lawyers take their cut, the contractor ends up having to pay the homeowner, but in doing so his company goes bankrupt.  The laborer has to find another job (does so within the week), and ends up working on the same driveway, but this time for another contractor, who, wisely, pays more.

But who has gotten messed with, really?

Contractor A, homeowner.  What trouble did the laborer get?  A week off without pay that he used to fix up his own driveway, increasing his home value by 10%.

And he messed with them all without their noticing.

And this happens all the time.

When will the elite learn?

It's funny, actually.

Funny to watch.

Fun to mess with the elite.

Really, it is.

You dont upset the balance of power like that ??  hehe.

why ?  what is that supposed to mean ??

what is the "Balance of Power?"  Do you keep a repressive Soviet Regime in power ??  Or do you hope a Putin Regime doesnt fill the void ?

Do you remove Imperial Germany, and tax the crap out of them, only to spawn a National Socialist Nazi ??

Or do you remove that "Power" and fill the void with capital injection, support of a democratically elected govt., and hopefully a peaceful productive Country?

Do you remove an Evil Middle East dictator, and leave the country to Anarchy ??  Or do you leave a force in place to guide an elected Democratic govt. that will one day be a peaceful productive Country ??

Dont upset the power ??

* * * *

The Contractor is a fool to let "HIS" worker, who agreed to do a job for a certain wage, take advantage of him.
The Contractor is a lazy bastard if he doesnt get off his ass, and get the job done as contracted by the owner.
..... If he walks off the job, he deserves to be sued and removed......and obviously, he is a poor businessman.

What is the moral of the story supposed to be ??
Caveat emptor maybe ??

* * *

Im stating, the non-action of eliminating a power, .... COULD lead to a more dangerous power.
There is a responsibility when a void is created......but not all examples could be viewed as failed.

To say, elimination of the Soviet Empire was not a good for the world is foolish.
To say that it was one man's fault.....is even more foolish.

What would YOU say the Nazi party was ??   Nationalistic for sure.....and what ??  Capitalist ?  Was there Competition, or Appointment ??
Was the Industrial machine ran by good party members ??

Yea, it was socialist.....almost sort of the same socialist model in place in Europe today......

i would agree to say the economy was run in a "socialist" way in nazi germany.
but bw.. was that the reason why the nazis had to be removed? not at all.
the reasons it had to be removed had been that it was following a far right ideology of facism.

so do u think europe is a danger today? lol

Black wing,

A balance of power is where a defacto peace results because two or more powers mutually consider that a military conflict is too costly to pursue. If one power decides to go imperialistic or nazi, then obviously peace becomes more costly than war. This Peace > War case occurred in World War II when Germany decided to foolishly attack everybody. At first taking Austria and a few other places didn't mean much and it was too considered too costly, but attacking Poland was the last straw. Then it started to become clear what Germany's intentions were, and the shift of power in Europe compelled France and Britain to act.

But in the case of a Soviet Empire that does not concern itself much with an arms race or expansionism, who cares? It's more beneficial to prop them up and keep the region stable than allow it to collapse in to anarchy and try to fill the void. We have tried doing that, and it's proven costly and alienated us from politically strategic countries (duh!). Being the dude that expands his influence is only going to alarm and antagonize neighbors, whether it's for moral reasons or not. The political stage is about power and nothing else. They don't give a crap about what's right or wrong.

As for Iraq, yes I think we should retreat. It's a matter of cutting costs and restoring our global power. Being the one who is the target of antagonism and proxy wars does not help much with power and influence. Like Machiavelli said. A wise prince must know when to be a lion and when to be a fox, and Bush sadly doesn't know when to be a fox.