Genius Obama says rich must pay their fair share

[Full-Auto]

Yea, but how much do they make using roads built by middle class? Using bridges and electricity from a grid and dams built by a middle class? Making money from factories built and staffed with the middle class? Being protected by firemen and police from the middle class? In a country where the middle class send their young off to war to protect that wealth the rich accrued with the help of, you guess it, the middle class?

The middle class paid with blood, sweat and the lives of their children. The rich can pay their fair share.

You know you right wingers aren't rich. But you are fools.

You have the same opportunity.

Your jealousy is noted.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What a Genius......

Hey look at me!!!!​

I remeber doing something like this in my fifth grade class picture.

My Lord, what an immature goofball this guy is.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

demand is common, constant and eternal.

No. Demand is a variable. It's the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. If my income doubles, so will my ability to buy goods. That will increase demand.

By the way, do you know what the name "Brutus" means in Latin?

Bullshit artist?

Uhm, like, no.

 

[rightwinger]

I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.

Obama is a garden-variety Marxist...

Very similar to Carter in his pathology..

I'm pretty sure both are sociopaths as well as half of modern progressives. They do what they do for image not for kindness.

Both believe people, voters or what have you will see them as a sort of "savior" and that is because they're obsessed with themselves.

Both are certainly narcissistic and both have a serious problem with capitalism when its not benefiting their voting base.

I mean Carter only goes and visits the Kim-il boys of North Korea regularly... Oh then he occasionally brings back idiot Americans that thought it was a good idea to hike into North Korea - As if the military wouldn't immediately capture them and bring them to camps..

Of course the communist loving hippies are considered spies until Carter comes with sucking KJI's dick promising cantaloupe and other supplies which are in turn sold off to China..

Clinton got fleeced twice on food aid.....

Oh all the while Kim Jong-Il is drinking from $15,000 bottles of whiskey telling his people hes the son of God while they eat grass or starve to death...

Yeah Jimmy Carters BFF.........................

Totalitarian moonbattery.....

marxist, pathology, Sociopaths, obsessed, Narcissistic, Communist loving hippies,.....

Looks like you got all the buzz words in

 

[Intense]

demand is common, constant and eternal.

No. Demand is a variable. It's the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. If my income doubles, so will my ability to buy goods. That will increase demand.

By the way, do you know what the name "Brutus" means in Latin?

Unless the cost of service or product also doubles.

Ya know what Kenya means in English?

 

[Dragon]

You have an interesting take on history. One of the greatest famines in the Soviet Union occurred in 1947 two years after WWII had ended.

I wasn't aware of that one. Clearly, it had a different cause than the infamous forced-collectivization famine.

As for why the famines occurred? The famines of the early 1930's took place because it was Stalin's belief that peasants were secretly holding back on grain they had harvested. He imposed draconian levels of grain collection based on that belief and millions starved to death as a result. Stalin also used famine to weaken potential resistance to the Soviet State as he did in the Ukraine in 1932 and '33.

All of those might have been further motivations; Stalin was paranoid enough to think that way. But for certain, he seized the harvest in order to trade it to the West for industrial capital and technology, and let his people starve without remorse. Not a nice guy.

When you maintain that the Soviets had no taxes it's rather misleading.

It could be, I suppose, if you thought I was saying this as some kind of praise. All I meant was that the direct comparison Brutus was making between what I said and the Soviet Union was nonsense.

 

[Dragon]

Bullshit artist?

It means stupid, brutish, or bestial.

The original Brutus (the one who overthrew the last King of Rome, not the one who assassinated Caesar) pretended to be a simpleton in order to protect himself from the king's suspicions.

I have to say that our Brutus chose his name well, all things considered.

 

[francoHFW]

The gov't now gets more revenue from payroll taxes than income taxes. You dittoheads are CLUELESS. Perfect tools of the greedy rich.

 

[asterism]

That's not necessarily true. The business owners who innovate and either provide greater value for services (cell phone plans with free long distance, a novel idea 20 years ago started by a company run in a garage) or provide new products and services (facebook) create jobs.

That doesn't refute what I said. There must be a potential market for those products, or there is no incentive to innovate at all. By "potential" market what I mean is that there are enough people with enough money to buy the products, if they knew about them and wanted them. Innovators meet that potential demand. It is still the demand that creates jobs.

Ah. Well then there's plenty of potential demand and the money to buy those products. How much do you pay for cable TV? It's a horrendously inefficient model just ripe for some innovation.

Commerce is being transformed. Fairly soon the concept of going to the bank to get some cash will be an anomaly, and all that money currently being charged by banks to have and staff huge customer lobbies will disappear.

In a way, though, we're talking about two different senses of "create." What I am looking at is the question: "Who do we want to have more money in order to spark more hiring?" The answer is the consumers, whether we are talking about innovative products or old-hat ones.

I disagree. Consumers are reflexive and never ahead of the curve. Propping up demand through some external scheme of central wealth distribution has failed every time it's been tried. Consumers need to be empowered to vote with their feet and their dollars to find a natural equilibrium. Coddling them by overpaying (and I think GM's new $52 per hour contract for minimally skilled labor is overpaying) does more harm down the road.

 

[Maple]

I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.

They already pay 70% of all taxes, how much more does he want?? It does not pay to succeed in this society, if you do, you are hated and punished for it. Better just live off of welfare, let other people pay for you.

 

[francoHFW]

the rich have doubled their wealth under voodoo, while everyone else has suffered. change the channel

 

[asterism]

We have been cutting back on the taxes the rich have paid for 30 years.

That's not true. We've been cutting the top marginal rates paid, not the share in taxes "the rich" have been paying.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?



Overspending is the problem, not tax receipts.

$200,000 does not make ya rich. But guess what? It was Republicans who put them into the same tax bracket as the super wealthy. Why? So that they could bitch about the poor guy making $200,000 not being rich and hold down the taxes paid by a guy making $20 mil

True. I'm not a fan of the GOP's tax policies. The GOP is the clear lessor of two evils. However Obama seems to have no problem going along. Is that just so he can blame someone else?

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is the problem. We have been operating under the myth that a tax cut will spur the economy and always pay for itself

The myth is that the government will increase revenues with higher tax rates.

 

[Intense]

The gov't now gets more revenue from payroll taxes than income taxes. You dittoheads are CLUELESS. Perfect tools of the greedy rich.

Payroll Taxes are Income Taxes Dip Shit.

Hidden Taxes, Surcharges, and Fee's on Goods and services?
Who makes more on a Gallon of Gas, the Oil Companies or the combined Government, added charges? How about Cell Phone usage? Land Line Phones? Good try though.

 

[rdean]

Yea, but how much do they make using roads built by middle class?

Actually everyone makes 100% of what they make using the roads. Sorry. Taxes are based on income, not how many miles you drive

Using bridges and electricity from a grid and dams built by a middle class? Making money from factories built and staffed with the middle class? Being protected by firemen and police from the middle class? In a country where the middle class send their young off to war to protect that wealth the rich accrued with the help of, you guess it, the middle class?

actually the police and fire protect middle class too!!. Sorry!!

The rich can pay their fair share.

isn't nearly 100% their fair share??? Why not think before you post?
Are you worried you make liberals look dumb?

But they make nearly 100% of the money. That's what you can do when you buy up politicians. And ALL Republicans are for sale. Believe it. Look at you. If you're the way you are, no wonder your leaders are like you.

 

[Avatar4321]

But they make nearly 100% of the money. That's what you can do when you buy up politicians. And ALL Republicans are for sale. Believe it. Look at you. If you're the way you are, no wonder your leaders are like you.

Funny how those people who work end up with money.

 

[Intense]

But they make nearly 100% of the money. That's what you can do when you buy up politicians. And ALL Republicans are for sale. Believe it. Look at you. If you're the way you are, no wonder your leaders are like you.

Funny how those people who work end up with money.

Exactly. There are Doers, and those that ride the coat tails.

 

[francoHFW]

And they're all the same % Dems and Pubs, the whites. Blacks and Browns are Dems because they know who the racists are...

 

[Intense]

And they're all the same % Dems and Pubs, the whites. Blacks and Browns are Dems because they know who the racists are...

I think you will find winners and losers in most any group. One thing that is pretty common though, is those that stand out generally get persecuted. Jealousy, Envy, cause bitterness and strife. That's a given.

 

[Dragon]

Ah. Well then there's plenty of potential demand and the money to buy those products. How much do you pay for cable TV? It's a horrendously inefficient model just ripe for some innovation.

Actually I never watch TV except occasionally an old show on Netflix, and so don't pay anything for cable, but I see what you're saying. The problem is that any such transformation is essentially cannibalistic. It takes money that is currently being spent on one industry and moves it to another. This is not a growth formula. Innovations of the past that have manifested economic growth have been new inventions serving a need that wasn't even recognized before they were put on the market: automobiles, radio, television, personal computers.

All of these innovations took off during good times, not bad ones. Each of them took advantage of money available for spending and a desire people didn't know they had (money and desire together being the components of demand). Note that mass-produced autos were introduced to the U.S. market by Ford in 1914, during the boomlet that accompanied our involvement in World War I, and sales of cars really took off in the 1920s boom. Radio broadcasting also began in the 1920s, although the technology existed much earlier.

The technology behind television was developed by the late 1920s, and the 1936 Olympic Games in Munich were broadcast on German TV that year. But in the U.S., television didn't take off until the late 1940s. Why? It's obvious to me: the Great Depression discouraged investment in innovative (and hence risky) new technologies like television, even more than it discouraged investment in general.

The same trend continues. Personal computers were an innovation of the relatively prosperous 1980s. E-commerce took off during the 1990s boom.

Innovation does not drive prosperity so much as prosperity drives innovation, which then contributes to prosperity. If you want to encourage innovation, take steps to encourage prosperity by keeping wages high and employment full.

Propping up demand through some external scheme of central wealth distribution has failed every time it's been tried. Consumers need to be empowered to vote with their feet and their dollars to find a natural equilibrium. Coddling them by overpaying (and I think Ford's new $52 per hour contract for minimally skilled labor is overpaying) does more harm down the road.

Actually, every time it's been tried it's succeeded. The most striking example of this is in the decades after World War II in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. The U.S. economy from 1940 to 1980 showed growth in per capita GDP more than double what it had from 1900 to 1940 and from 1980 to the present. Government policies that skew the tax burden toward the wealthy, strongly enforce labor rights and encourage unions, and regulate the financial system so as to drive investments into real wealth production rather than financial shell-games, have been shown to produce huge economic benefits, as well of course as being fairer. And as I noted above, innovation is a product of good times.

 

[rightwinger]

But they make nearly 100% of the money. That's what you can do when you buy up politicians. And ALL Republicans are for sale. Believe it. Look at you. If you're the way you are, no wonder your leaders are like you.

Funny how those people who work end up with money.

Or how those who manipulate the system to ensure they profit end up with all the money