A government that can take from the Rich

[Mr. Shaman]

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

“Don’t get discouraged! Jesus is the answer.”​

"Diamonds Are Robertson's Best Friend"

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

Women were never property. Can't even be honest with yourself can you?

Doing a little.....

.....selective-reading....

.....are you???

What happened to your whole literal-translation trip???

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Mitt Romney has given more to charity than any other candidate in recent history and has done so consistantly throughout his life. How much did you give to the poor recently?

That's what he told you, huh???

I don't suppose he gave you a link to all his receipts, huh?​

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You're being disingenuous again. Imagine that.

For one a person earning 56K a year is not in the 30% bracket. Two not all of the 56K is taxed at the same rate.

If you are single with no dependents and earn 56K a year, your federal income tax liability is $10,131

That's 18% of your income not 30%

For one who is all for more taxes you'd think you'd at least try to understand the nature of a graduated tax scale.

And before you ask me if people should pay a lesser rate for capital gains than earned income I'll give you my answer now.

I don't mind the capital gains tax being lower because I have a lot of investments outside of my 401K and IRAs and I will one day want to use that money to supplement my income so a lower tax rate benefits me.

Right now I actually pay about 23% of my total income to the feds. Do I think it's right that I pay a higher percentage of my earned income in taxes than someone making less?

No.

It seems to me that until everyone pays the same percentage of their income to the government then those paying a lesser percentage than I have no right to even utter the slogan "fair share" when it comes to paying taxes

 

[zeke]

And before you ask me if people should pay a lesser rate for capital gains than earned income I'll give you my answer now.

ok. Do you think that people that actually get paid hundreds of millions of dollars should be able to buy politicians to re write the tax code so that their hundreds of millions of income could be treated like a capital gain. When it is not. And therefore pay income taxes at a capital gains rate? Think derivative traders. Some made as much as a billion dollars. Paying 15%. You support that?

 

[mudwhistle]

you were right, women were nothing more than property when the usa was formed

When were US women no longer the property of their husbands

I know, it was horrible.

Speaking of owning women, do you support a Muslim's right to own his wife?

Of course not, why would I support such a thing? Why would you even ask the question Mud?

Why are you silent about it then?

I was just wondering why the left keeps bringing up ridiculous hyperbole from our distant past when somebody you may have defended quite recently is doing it today.

According to you it seems America is fucked up because of our history. However we are currently supporting rebels that are busy instituting Sharia Law (Ownership Of Women) all over Africa and the Middle-East.

Seems to me this doesn't bother you a bit.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Women were never property. Can't even be honest with yourself can you?

FYI

Women had more legal rights in Ancient Egypt than in Colonial America.

You have asked a complex question. It's complex because no single law was ever passed at a certain date. A complete answer would involve a comprehensive survey of laws in early America, laws that controlled inheritance and property. There was no single law that stated, "Women are the property of their husbands". A woman's place in the world was carved out by ancient legal principals and traditions that evolved over centuries such as:

• Women were denied a separate legal status from their husbands.
• A husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband.
• Women were denied rights of inheritance.
• Women were denied the right to own property in their own right.
• Men could be compensated for the loss of a wife due to another man's negligence.
• Men paid a bride price to the parents of his wife in the same way he purchased livestock.

When were US women no longer the property of their husbands

That doesnt prove what you think it does. Women were never property.

.....But, widows....who were left property, by their husbands....had a "bad habit" of....

.....turning-into "witches".

 

[Care4all]

Women were never property. Can't even be honest with yourself can you?

FYI

Women had more legal rights in Ancient Egypt than in Colonial America.

You have asked a complex question. It's complex because no single law was ever passed at a certain date. A complete answer would involve a comprehensive survey of laws in early America, laws that controlled inheritance and property. There was no single law that stated, "Women are the property of their husbands". A woman's place in the world was carved out by ancient legal principals and traditions that evolved over centuries such as:

• Women were denied a separate legal status from their husbands.
• A husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband.
• Women were denied rights of inheritance.
• Women were denied the right to own property in their own right.
• Men could be compensated for the loss of a wife due to another man's negligence.
• Men paid a bride price to the parents of his wife in the same way he purchased livestock.

When were US women no longer the property of their husbands

That doesnt prove what you think it does. Women were never property.
And "Colonial America" is a joke. There were 13 colonies all with different laws.

you can call it or not call it, whatever you wish....but a spade is a spade and we were treated like property and it took years if not a century or two, for women to have the same God given rights as men....we didn't even get the right to vote from the fed gvt until the 20th century...

 

[Skull Pilot]

And before you ask me if people should pay a lesser rate for capital gains than earned income I'll give you my answer now.

ok. Do you think that people that actually get paid hundreds of millions of dollars should be able to buy politicians to re write the tax code so that their hundreds of millions of income could be treated like a capital gain. When it is not. And therefore pay income taxes at a capital gains rate? Think derivative traders. Some made as much as a billion dollars. Paying 15%. You support that?

Yeah I'm all for bribing politicians (sarcasm)

And if a politician gets bought whose fault is it? It's the politicians fault for passing laws that allow them to be bribed.

And you have to prove that some people have their earned income taxed at capital gains rates if you want to make that assertion.

I have been pretty clear on my position all along. If the government is going to tax income then tax all income at a lower rate with no exceptions and no deductions.

That is the only way taxes will ever be "fair"

 

[mudwhistle]

FYI
When were US women no longer the property of their husbands

That doesnt prove what you think it does. Women were never property.
And "Colonial America" is a joke. There were 13 colonies all with different laws.

you can call it or not call it, whatever you wish....but a spade is a spade and we were treated like property and it took years if not a century or two, for women to have the same God given rights as men....we didn't even get the right to vote from the fed gvt until the 20th century...

Am I putting you on the spot?

Sorry.

I'd just like your opinion on the current state of affairs rather than something that happened around 100 years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Okay, so you take the power of taxation and regulation away from the Government.

Where does that leave us?

that's leaves you with something to do besides leech.

Okay, so this idiot wants a federal government with zero power to tax.

How many of you agree with her?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Mitt Romney has given more to charity than any other candidate in recent history and has done so consistantly throughout his life. How much did you give to the poor recently?

Mitt Romney is proposing a huge tax cut for himself in his budget plans, or in the Ryan plan he supports.

How many years of that massive tax cut will it take for him to recoup his past charitable donations?

 

[Katzndogz]

On CBS This Morning, Mayor Bloomberg said it correctly. Even if you took everything from the very wealthy the effect on the economy is deminimus. The greatest share of wealth is held by the middle class in the aggregate. To achieve redistribution of wealth, the rich would have to give up 90% of their wealth with the middle class giving up 75% of theirs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On CBS This Morning, Mayor Bloomberg said it correctly. Even if you took everything from the very wealthy the effect on the economy is deminimus. The greatest share of wealth is held by the middle class in the aggregate. To achieve redistribution of wealth, the rich would have to give up 90% of their wealth with the middle class giving up 75% of theirs.

That's a strawman, no one wants to take everything from the Rich.

The Republican party wants the country to sacrifice, in order to put our fiscal house in order,

(so they say, anyhow) but they not only exempt the Rich from that sacrifice in EVERY ONE OF THEIR ECONOMIC/BUDGET PLANS,

but they go even further by making this plan for sacrifice a financial boon to the Rich.

Someone justify that!

 

[mudwhistle]

On CBS This Morning, Mayor Bloomberg said it correctly. Even if you took everything from the very wealthy the effect on the economy is deminimus. The greatest share of wealth is held by the middle class in the aggregate. To achieve redistribution of wealth, the rich would have to give up 90% of their wealth with the middle class giving up 75% of theirs.

That's a strawman, no one wants to take everything from the Rich.

The Republican party wants the country to sacrifice, in order to put our fiscal house in order,

(so they say, anyhow) but they not only exempt the Rich from that sacrifice in EVERY ONE OF THEIR ECONOMIC/BUDGET PLANS,

but they go even further by making this plan for sacrifice a financial boon to the Rich.

Someone justify that!

Ok.

Your spacial argument is based on false stereotypes.

Who hires you and pays your salary? The GD rich.

Who makes it possible to produce products and services? The GD rich.

What do you think the rich will do if you burden them more and more with no end in sight? Do business elswhere.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On CBS This Morning, Mayor Bloomberg said it correctly. Even if you took everything from the very wealthy the effect on the economy is deminimus. The greatest share of wealth is held by the middle class in the aggregate. To achieve redistribution of wealth, the rich would have to give up 90% of their wealth with the middle class giving up 75% of theirs.

That's a strawman, no one wants to take everything from the Rich.

The Republican party wants the country to sacrifice, in order to put our fiscal house in order,

(so they say, anyhow) but they not only exempt the Rich from that sacrifice in EVERY ONE OF THEIR ECONOMIC/BUDGET PLANS,

but they go even further by making this plan for sacrifice a financial boon to the Rich.

Someone justify that!

Ok.

Your spacial argument is based on false stereotypes.

Who hires you and pays your salary? The GD rich.

Who makes it possible to produce products and services? The GD rich.

What do you think the rich will do if you burden them more and more with no end in sight? Do business elswhere.

There's no mention of any stereotype in my post. The Romney/Ryan budget plan is a huge financial windfall for wealthy Americans,

while extracting sacrifice from almost all other Americans to finance that windfall.

That is indisputable,

unless of course you'd like to try to dispute it with facts and figures.

 

[Londoner]

1945-1973: Ultra cheap energy (gas below $1). Global manufacturing competitors either destroyed by WWII (Germany/Japan) or not yet integrated or developed (China/India/3rd world).

Consequence: America was manufacturer to the world, i.e., jobs, jobs, jobs. Consumer demand was at an all time high. Government ensures middle class solvency through a network of programs which puts more dollars in middle class wallets. This demand forces the capitalists to invest and add more jobs (in order to capture the extra money in middle class wallets). This is often called the golden age of American capitalism. It was the period of America's greatest, longest economic growth - and it took place during a time when government was heavily involved in the economy.

1973-1980: Cheap energy goes away temporarily - leading to terrible inflation (followed by stagflation: high inflation accompanied by zero economic growth and high unemployment). Global competitors start to cut into our manufacturing pie. The great postwar period of economic growth ends. The Republicans blame government spending, high taxes, and regulations for destroying incentives, efficiency, and jobs.

1980-2001: The Reagan credit boom - an unprecedented expansion of household debt. Let's back up and unpack this.

-Big business approaches Reagan and says they want more access to ultra cheap 3rd world labor and raw material. They ask him to liberalize trade laws so they can bypass the expensive American-middle-class-labor. Reagan agrees and dismantles the high wage American manufacturing labor model, i.e., he busts unions, ends legal and regulatory support of middle class labor, and frees capital to harvest 3rd world labor. Wages and benefits in American plummet for the middle class, but explode for the wealthy.

(FYI: How did Reagan deliver 3rd world labor/resources to big business? He used the Soviet Threat to bring resource-rich parts of the 3rd world under America's protective wing. This was part of a grand strategy to create the military component of global capitalism. Why military? Because, places with cheap labor and raw materials must be "stabilized" . How do you think we get things like oil & sugar and precious metals from dangerous parts of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America?)

Consequence: postwar manufacturing wages are replaced by low retail wages. The GM job model where the father could support an entire family was replaced by the Walmart model, where one medical emergency puts the individual in bankruptcy, and the wage earner does not make enough to send kids to college. The result of this shift to a low wage model was that Americans had less money for consumption, and less opportunity to climb the economic ladder. (Driving down wages makes the rich richer, but it means that the middle class can no longer educate their children. This make America less competitive because there is less competition for things like science jobs. In order to ensure that the wealthy can buy islands in the pacific and leave dynastic wealthy to their children, we no longer invest in education. China is the opposite)

What did Reagan do when the American family lost wages/entitlements, thus making it harder for them to consume and drive the consumption economy? He aggressively expanded credit markets. This resulted in a share rise of household debt. Basically, big business took the extra profits made possible by the new low wage model and loaned this money back to the dying middle class in the form of high interest credit cards. What the middle class used to make in wages/benefits, they would now borrow from the capitalist. This lead to a 30 year period of 'in-debting' the middle class.

2001-2008: Bush inherits a world where the middle class is so in debt that they cannot sustain consumption on the model which had been in place since Reagan: expanded credit. The reality of the low wage Reagan model has finally come home to roost, i.e., you cannot borrow forever, i.e., you cannot replace wages with credit cards. Granted, the wealthy have more money than at any time in history (because their labor costs have been slashed and their tax rates are at 15%, lower than the middle class). However, the middle class no longer has the wages to consume. And they are so in debt (after 30 years of borrowing), that they can no longer borrow.

After the Clinton recession and 9/11, Bush is left with a dead economy. There is nothing left to drive consumption. The middle class, having lost manufacturing jobs and no longer in a position to borrow sufficiently, is tapped out. The economy shows signs of deep sickness with a new phenomena: "jobless recovery". America, having shipped jobs to the 3rd world under the reagan model of breaking expensive American labor, enters a post-job era.

Consequence: Bush turns to the last asset left in order to stimulate job growth and economic activity- the bedrock of the American system: home values. He initiates steroidal lending to the non-credit-worthy. He loans trillions of dollars into the economy on the backs of people without jobs or collateral. Home values sky-rocket and Americans use their fake new-found wealth to spend like crazy. Employment stabilizes and the economy stays afloat on the backs of bubble jobs and bubble consumption (i.e., jobs sustained by criminally inflated housing values).

2008: The Bush housing bubble bursts, destroying the American financial system and leading to the bankrupting of millions of consumers. The combination of the Reagan Model (i.e., lower wages, increase borrowing) and the Bush bubble (which destroyed a generation of consumers) has left America in its deepest hole ever.

2009-2012 Hand this mess to a black democrat and blame him.

Will America ever recover from the Reagan low wage model... followed by the expansion of credit ... followed by the bursting of the Bush housing bubble?.
The game is over. American consumer demand will be insufficient for decades. Welcome to the long road down. The Reagan/Bush poison has taken full effect. The middle class is gone . . . and so is their consumption . . . and now there is nothing to drive the economy. They cannot borrow another cent.

Attention Reagan: You screwed up. We realize that big business funded your ascendancy so that you would bust unions and drive down wages. We know you passed the largest amnesty bill in history so that you could flood California with cheap labor, thus breaking union control of California labor. But you forgot something, or perhaps you never knew it. We need to pay high wages and benefits to Americans so they can consume and drive the domestic economy. When the middle class has a lot of money to spend, the capitalist is forced to innovate and add more jobs in order to capture that money. Capital will only invest when there is sufficient demand to capture. (Silly rabbit, you tried to create demand by expanding credit. How dare you expand household debt to replace high wages? How dare you drive the middle class into debt in order to expand the profits of a narrow group of Americans!) By busting unions and letting capital ship jobs to cheaper labor climates, you destroyed the goose that laid the golden egg: demand. Silly rabbit. You promised us that if we adopted your tax and regulatory model that the jobs would grow. Then, right after we elected you, we watched jobs being shipped to China so that your donors could get cheaper labor costs. How dare you!

 

[Care4all]

That doesnt prove what you think it does. Women were never property.
And "Colonial America" is a joke. There were 13 colonies all with different laws.

you can call it or not call it, whatever you wish....but a spade is a spade and we were treated like property and it took years if not a century or two, for women to have the same God given rights as men....we didn't even get the right to vote from the fed gvt until the 20th century...

Am I putting you on the spot?

Sorry.

I'd just like your opinion on the current state of affairs rather than something that happened around 100 years ago.

I commented on an untrue statement of Avatar's and him calling another person a liar, when it was Avatar who was wrong and did not know his history....simple as that....

 

[Care4all]

That doesnt prove what you think it does. Women were never property.
And "Colonial America" is a joke. There were 13 colonies all with different laws.

you can call it or not call it, whatever you wish....but a spade is a spade and we were treated like property and it took years if not a century or two, for women to have the same God given rights as men....we didn't even get the right to vote from the fed gvt until the 20th century...

Am I putting you on the spot?

Sorry.

I'd just like your opinion on the current state of affairs rather than something that happened around 100 years ago.

are you the Rabbi too mud....is rabbi your soc?

 

[mudwhistle]

That's a strawman, no one wants to take everything from the Rich.

The Republican party wants the country to sacrifice, in order to put our fiscal house in order,

(so they say, anyhow) but they not only exempt the Rich from that sacrifice in EVERY ONE OF THEIR ECONOMIC/BUDGET PLANS,

but they go even further by making this plan for sacrifice a financial boon to the Rich.

Someone justify that!

Ok.

Your spacial argument is based on false stereotypes.

Who hires you and pays your salary? The GD rich.

Who makes it possible to produce products and services? The GD rich.

What do you think the rich will do if you burden them more and more with no end in sight? Do business elswhere.

There's no mention of any stereotype in my post. The Romney/Ryan budget plan is a huge financial windfall for wealthy Americans,

while extracting sacrifice from almost all other Americans to finance that windfall.

That is indisputable,

unless of course you'd like to try to dispute it with facts and figures.

Your argument is a rationalization and is nothing but stereotypical nonsense.

I blew it all to hell and you don't even know it.

Without the rich there are less jobs.

Without profits there is less opportunity for expansion and thus less need for more good paying jobs.

Obama talks job-creation but he is the number one roadblock to it.

He's simply framed his policies in a way to portray his job-killing ideology as standing up for the very people he's screwing. You're too mind-numb to realize it.

And Btw, Romney didn't help write the Ryan budget. He's a private citizen.