A government that can take from the Rich

[mudwhistle]

You're absolutely right, a government can do that. Who would pretend otherwise? We have a government right now that supports the rich exploiting the poor.

.

Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

You have no..and I really mean no..idea what you are talking about. None.

Rich people didn't provide the money. Rich people use your money and my money to make money.

They never ever risk their own assets. That's for suckers.

Obviously you don't know a thing about finance.

I guess you think everything they do is in as total vacuum. They don't have to pay any overhead for their offices, their employees, utilities, state and federal taxes, licenses, worker's compensation, etc.

You claim they have no risk. The fact that more and more people defaulted on loans from 2003 to 2009 than just about any time in our history. The folks that defaulted walked sticking the banks with the bill.

I used to loan money and I had a list of at least 50 names of people that never paid me back. The poor are not the helpless sucks you claim they are. The reason some of them are poor is because of waste and lack of accountability.

 

[JoeB131]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

Thank you, Mr Bromide.

It strikes me that a lot of so-called conservatives are complaining about the very government dependency they've helped to create.

Back when I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, most families had a person with a good paying union job. They paid taxes, grumbled about those living on the dole, but life was actually pretty good.

Then we got the business geniuses (like Mitt Romney) who decided that gosh darn, those workers are just making too much money. We can always get someone who can work cheaper. We can bust up that union. And if that doesn't bring labor costs down enough, we can re-open that factory in Mexico or China.

And no problem, Mitt might have gotten rid of that good paying job at AmPad, but he's replaced it with a nice minimum wage job at Staples.

The problem is, the guy who has that Staples Job is more likely to go to the government to make up the difference. Food Stamps to put food on the table, Section 8 housing to get a roof over the head, and MedicAid because they don't have health benefits.

Suddenly, the loyalty isn't to unions and employers, it's to the government. And all you have to do is vote for a Democrat to get more.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You're absolutely right, a government can do that. Who would pretend otherwise? We have a government right now that supports the rich exploiting the poor.

As a twist to Mitt Romney's words... I'm not really concerned about the rich, they have their own safety net. The rich don't struggle in the ways the poor do. If they did, they wouldn't be rich.


Also what the fuck? Why are you trying to make the poor as a point of your argument? You guys have pointed out time and time again you don't rightly give a fuck about the poor. This thread is the equivalent of someone like me showing concern for the rich.

And that's exactly what the Dems think you'll believe. They think you're too stupid to see through their bull shit. They they claim that they are going after the rich and we are trying to stop them, when in fact they're going after everyone. They lie so much how can you trust them? Only a retard would continue to.

Fact is they know that by raising taxes on the rich they will barely scratch the surface when it comes to paying down the debt. They know that once they trick you into buying into their class-warfare you'll re-elect Obama for four more and you won't have a say in what he does then. Not one thing.....because his fear of being thrown out of office will be gone.

Truth is if you tax all of the billionaires and millionaires exactly the way Obama says they will only get a fraction of what they need in revenue to pay off the debt. The best case estimates state that it will only cause an increase in revenue of only $40 billion over 10 years. Currently the annual deficit is $1.3 trillion. Do the math. What makes their mouths water is removing the Bush tax-cuts. You know......those evil tax-cuts they keep extending. They want to remove them. And really, that's just the beginning.

So what are they up to?

Are they actually intentionally trying to destroy our economy? Possibly. Are they actually just trying to institute another massive tax on wages for everyone? Most likely. Once they raise all of our taxes will they ever pay off the debt? Hell no. Are you really stupid enough to believe their intellectually lazy arguments? Appears so.

4 points is not a "massive" tax increase.

....Yet, it's "large"-enough for the high-roller$/1%ers to call it.....

"The Highest Taxes In U.S. History!!"

August 5, 1996

*

"The year 1992 is often used as a base comparison year by commentators alleging that taxes have grown explosively in recent years. But 1992 is not an appropriate comparison year. Because of the recession of the early 1990s, tax receipts were unusually low during 1991 and 1992. As the economy emerged from the recession, tax receipts increased in substantial part because of economic growth, not simply because tax rates on the wealthiest taxpayers were raised.

After the tax increase of 1993, tax receipts increased from 17.7 percent in 1992 to 18.9 percent of GDP in 1995. According to CBO, if the 1993 tax increase had not taken place and tax laws had remained unchanged, tax receipts would have increased about 0.3 percent of GDP — to 18.0 percent — simply as a result of the improved economy.

Similarly, tax receipts were $97 billion higher in 1995 than CBO estimated they would be when the Clinton Administration came into office in 1992. CBO estimates that fully half of this increase is due to economic growth."​

 

[Sallow]

Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

You have no..and I really mean no..idea what you are talking about. None.

Rich people didn't provide the money. Rich people use your money and my money to make money.

They never ever risk their own assets. That's for suckers.

Obviously you don't know a thing about finance.

I guess you think everything they do is in as total vacuum. They don't have to pay any overhead for their offices, their employees, utilities, state and federal taxes, licenses, worker's compensation, etc.

You claim they have no risk. The fact that more and more people defaulted on loans from 2003 to 2009 than just about any time in our history. The folks that defaulted walked sticking the banks with the bill.

I used to loan money and I had a list of at least 50 names of people that never paid me back. The poor are not the helpless sucks you claim they are. The reason some of them are poor is because of waste and lack of accountability.

Again.

Rich people, do NOT use their own money. If a loan is defaulted on..that comes from the other investors..or if it's a bank..it's taken out in fees.

None of the people that engineered the collapse..had any skin in the game. They were ready to walk away. Look at Dick Fuld from Lehman. He presided over the collapse of an institution that was around for over a century. He walked out of the office with a 20 million dollar golden parachute while employees and investors got bupkis.

That's why President Bush..and the rest of the conservative cowboys had to cobble together TARP. Because the kings of wallstreet were all planning on doing the very same thing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Can you explain how the rich are exploiting the poor? Seems the opposite is more true. All those defaulted mortgages. Rich people provided the money. Poor people took the money. Rich people have lost their own money. Poor people lost rich people's money.

Oh, shut up you fool. Nobody forced the banks to give out a loan to anyone. They did it all on their own. Nobody took their money, they gave it away freely.

Community Reinvestment Act ring a bell for you?

Does the term....

...."encourage"....

.....ring a bell for you?

 

[rdean]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

You fucking moron. We don't want to "take care of the poor", we want to give them opportunity.

If Mitt Romney can pay a measly 15% on 56 thousand a DAY, then why do others have to pay 30% on 56 thousand a YEAR? What is wrong with these right wingers? They need more fish. I hear fish is good for the brain.

 

[mudwhistle]

You have no..and I really mean no..idea what you are talking about. None.

Rich people didn't provide the money. Rich people use your money and my money to make money.

They never ever risk their own assets. That's for suckers.

Obviously you don't know a thing about finance.

I guess you think everything they do is in as total vacuum. They don't have to pay any overhead for their offices, their employees, utilities, state and federal taxes, licenses, worker's compensation, etc.

You claim they have no risk. The fact that more and more people defaulted on loans from 2003 to 2009 than just about any time in our history. The folks that defaulted walked sticking the banks with the bill.

I used to loan money and I had a list of at least 50 names of people that never paid me back. The poor are not the helpless sucks you claim they are. The reason some of them are poor is because of waste and lack of accountability.

Again.

Rich people, do NOT use their own money. If a loan is defaulted on..that comes from the other investors..or if it's a bank..it's taken out in fees.

None of the people that engineered the collapse..had any skin in the game. They were ready to walk away. Look at Dick Fuld from Lehman. He presided over the collapse of an institution that was around for over a century. He walked out of the office with a 20 million dollar golden parachute while employees and investors got bupkis.

That's why President Bush..and the rest of the conservative cowboys had to cobble together TARP. Because the kings of wallstreet were all planning on doing the very same thing.

I'm sure they were all trying to rob us. All it takes is one or two highly publicized examples and you libs paint the entire industry with the same brush.

You keep forgetting that there are startup expenses, and if enough people default on their loans, which is renigging on a promise, the bank goes under. Who carries the greatest risk? The poor suck that borrowed the money to buy a car or the bank who relies on people paying them back to pay their employees and their expenses?

Ever wonder why the housing market is currently in the tank?

Because there's too much risk under the current economic conditions.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government simply redefines "rich". Rich is someone making $100,000 a year. It's not a billionaire, it's not even a millionaire, it's some guy who works 12 hours a day. When necessary, the government will redefine rich to be someone who makes $50,000 a year, maybe down to $25,000 a year. If you can afford to pay for your own housing, you are rich, or will be as soon as the definition gets to you.

 

[JoeB131]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

 

[mudwhistle]

The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

When was this, and what communist country was this?

 

[JoeB131]

The government simply redefines "rich". Rich is someone making $100,000 a year. It's not a billionaire, it's not even a millionaire, it's some guy who works 12 hours a day. When necessary, the government will redefine rich to be someone who makes $50,000 a year, maybe down to $25,000 a year. If you can afford to pay for your own housing, you are rich, or will be as soon as the definition gets to you.

Ooooh, the poor rich. They won't be able to afford their polo ponies if we actually make them pay the same level of taxes they were paying under that raging socialist, Ronald Reagan.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

You fucking moron. We don't want to "take care of the poor", we want to give them opportunity.

If Mitt Romney can pay a measly 15% on 56 thousand a DAY, then why do others have to pay 30% on 56 thousand a YEAR? What is wrong with these right wingers? They need more fish. I hear fish is good for the brain.

Im surprised your honest about not wanting to take care of the poor. No. You don't. Never claimed you did. I claimed that if the government has the power to take away by force the money of someone wealthy who can afford to fight them, they can take the money from the poor and oppress them and they can't fight against them.

It doesnt matter whether your rich or poor, if your right to your property is not secure, none of our property rights are.

That's the problem with living under a government that thinks they should be entitled to what you work for. When they can arbitrarily take what yours, they can do so with anyone else as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

You fucking moron. We don't want to "take care of the poor", we want to give them opportunity.

If Mitt Romney can pay a measly 15% on 56 thousand a DAY, then why do others have to pay 30% on 56 thousand a YEAR? What is wrong with these right wingers? They need more fish. I hear fish is good for the brain.

Oh and the rest of us don't pay that much.

 

[JoeB131]

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

When was this, and what communist country was this?

Actually, it was American, in the 1950's and 60's.

Look at this chart, you'll see what I mean... You can read a chart, can't you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

You realize that it doesn't matter what you earn if everything you earn can be taken away from you, right?

Our forefathers fight and died to secure our right to keep our property from an over intrusive government. And you want to hand it to them because you are jealous of others. How screwed up is that?

 

[mudwhistle]

Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

When was this, and what communist country was this?

Actually, it was American, in the 1950's and 60's.

Look at this chart, you'll see what I mean... You can read a chart, can't you?

Yeah, I can read one that's complete.

This one doesn't explain much.

Try again.

 

[Seawytch]

Can take from the poor much easier.

When we allow politicians and bureaucrats divide us because of envy and covetousness, we weaken our own rights and potential.

The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

And this would be when exactly? Was this way back when women were the property?

 

[WillowTree]

The poor rich people, they just don't have a thing. Pretty soon, they are going to be forced to eat their polo ponies.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share.

We had our greatest prosperity when all men and women were secure in their rights to their property.

And this would be when exactly? Was this way back when women were the property?

you're still bought and paid for if you have to have someone provide your pills for you. You're just tooo stupid to see it.

 

[JoeB131]

Ummm, no, not really.

We had our greatest prosperity when we had a fair distribution of the rewards of labor.

You realize that it doesn't matter what you earn if everything you earn can be taken away from you, right?

Our forefathers fight and died to secure our right to keep our property from an over intrusive government. And you want to hand it to them because you are jealous of others. How screwed up is that?

I want us to pay our bills and meet our commitments.

When taxes are cut on the wealthy, they are inevitably raised on the rest of us. Better them than us.

If given a choice between Mitt Romney buying another mansion and paying for feeding hungry kids, I think any humane person knows what the right thing to do is. Definitely what Jesus would do.

I always find it amusing that people who claim to be "Christian" would probably call Jesus a dirty stinking socialist.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24