"Income Inequality": So What?

[logical4u]

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

 

[logical4u]

Unfortunately, most people in this country see it as a problem, and it's one of the reasons for Obama's success. It's also largely responsible for the upsurge in violence this country is experiencing. The rich keep getting richer, coveting their wealth and power, and building a police state to protect it. Meanwhile, the natives are getting restless for a bigger share of the pie, and sometimes act out in violent ways. It's an issue that needs to be addressed before it starts getting worse. Obama's solution is more wealth transfer, a band aid response, the real solution is eliminating the burdens of taxes and regulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit.

Taxes are a necessary evil if one wants a country in which to practice "true" capitalism. Regardless, even if we had true capitalism, the economic structure is unsustainable long-term. We cannot be at war, so to speak/write, with our home. Where the more efficient the destruction of our home equals greater prosperity for a relative few of the many. Makes no sense, but then I see many of you blind con followers here can't add 1+1 so.....

As for reg's, do you like clean air? Clean water? Consumer protection? Etc,.........? Do you honestly think the private sector is going to do the right thing without govt reg's? We can look back at history and see de-reg's have not even come close to working, nor will it ever work. Private industry does not do what is right for the workers OR the consumers.

Got it, you support "trickle up poverty".

NO ONE is suggesting to remove all taxes. Many of us are suggesting to cutting wasteful spending in the gov't, and paring down the taxes to match less spending.
Regs: seriously? The democrats are writing regulations that cannot be enforced, and cannot be implemented without pricing services beyond the average citizen. Do you want reasonably clean water delivered to your home, or do you want to walk to a water source (maybe clean, maybe not) and carry it to your house in buckets? If the water standards continue to be made tighter, municipalities will not be able to provide "clean" water to their customers. The filtration and the pumps required will be too much to afford. Do you want clean air? If you continue to beat the electric companies with riduculous emission standards (CO2, really? what's next, deciding who can exhale?), electricity will be priced beyond the average consumer. How do you feel about burning wood or coal to stay warm? Forget air conditioning, electricity will be too expensive for that.
Not too many people have a problem with practical regulations that can be enforced fairly easily. Making regulations that are selectively applied to political enemies is taking corporate greed to a whole new level.

Take a look around you. What would you do without electricity? Could you find water without turning on a spiget? In voting and demanding the best of everything, consider first if you will be able to afford it first. Regulating the things that make our lives easier to the point of extinction will not make anyone's air or water cleaner. It will have the opposite effect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

Answering a question with a question means your argument has run out of gas.
Your denial of trickle down economics does nothing but place you in your own little comfort zone.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

I think lefties such as "fords" figure the scenario you gave is accurate. Their problem with it is that those workers who benefit from the activities of "AA" are in their opinion, not high enough. That those workers deserve a greater share.That the people who own and manage "AA" are actually keepingmore of the profits than is allowable under the guidelines of political correctness and fairness .
Based on that premise, people such as fordsflylo claim and insist trickle down does not work when in fact our economy has been a trickle down economy basically since this nation was founded.
Back in the 2008 campaign when Obama suggested the economy should flow from the bottom up, I spit out beer....I wanted to jump into the TV and ask Obama, "hey genius, when is the last time you saw a broke or poor person start a business, hire employees and of course keep that business viable, profitable and operating long term?
The conclusion is Obama meant none of it. Obama was simply pandering to his left wing political base. We know this because the idea of Obama's trickle up economy has never materialized nor has it ever been considered.
So when fords posts his nonsensical rants about trickle down and no one but he having a clue about economics, I simply consider his rants as free entertainment.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

 

[Fordsflylow]

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

Answering a question with a question means your argument has run out of gas.
Your denial of trickle down economics does nothing but place you in your own little comfort zone.

So TRY and debunk it then mouthpiece! Do you even have a clue as to what you are writing? I am not in denial of "trickle-down economics." I have yet to be convinced that it has worked for the lower classes. How has is worked out?

 

[Fordsflylow]

Unfortunately, most people in this country see it as a problem, and it's one of the reasons for Obama's success. It's also largely responsible for the upsurge in violence this country is experiencing. The rich keep getting richer, coveting their wealth and power, and building a police state to protect it. Meanwhile, the natives are getting restless for a bigger share of the pie, and sometimes act out in violent ways. It's an issue that needs to be addressed before it starts getting worse. Obama's solution is more wealth transfer, a band aid response, the real solution is eliminating the burdens of taxes and regulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit.

Taxes are a necessary evil if one wants a country in which to practice "true" capitalism. Regardless, even if we had true capitalism, the economic structure is unsustainable long-term. We cannot be at war, so to speak/write, with our home. Where the more efficient the destruction of our home equals greater prosperity for a relative few of the many. Makes no sense, but then I see many of you blind con followers here can't add 1+1 so.....

As for reg's, do you like clean air? Clean water? Consumer protection? Etc,.........? Do you honestly think the private sector is going to do the right thing without govt reg's? We can look back at history and see de-reg's have not even come close to working, nor will it ever work. Private industry does not do what is right for the workers OR the consumers.

Got it, you support "trickle up poverty".

NO ONE is suggesting to remove all taxes. Many of us are suggesting to cutting wasteful spending in the gov't, and paring down the taxes to match less spending.
Regs: seriously? The democrats are writing regulations that cannot be enforced, and cannot be implemented without pricing services beyond the average citizen. Do you want reasonably clean water delivered to your home, or do you want to walk to a water source (maybe clean, maybe not) and carry it to your house in buckets? If the water standards continue to be made tighter, municipalities will not be able to provide "clean" water to their customers. The filtration and the pumps required will be too much to afford. Do you want clean air? If you continue to beat the electric companies with riduculous emission standards (CO2, really? what's next, deciding who can exhale?), electricity will be priced beyond the average consumer. How do you feel about burning wood or coal to stay warm? Forget air conditioning, electricity will be too expensive for that.
Not too many people have a problem with practical regulations that can be enforced fairly easily. Making regulations that are selectively applied to political enemies is taking corporate greed to a whole new level.

Take a look around you. What would you do without electricity? Could you find water without turning on a spiget? In voting and demanding the best of everything, consider first if you will be able to afford it first. Regulating the things that make our lives easier to the point of extinction will not make anyone's air or water cleaner. It will have the opposite effect.

A consumer driven economy built this nation, not the other way around bonehead. You obviously haven't a clue as to how real capitalism works and until you do I'm not wasting my time on your wasted mind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

You think you are smart..
The Obama regime is proposing the largest tax increase in the history of the US.
They want to drop the Bush tax cuts in their entirety. They want to raise the rate on capital gains to the same levels as income essentially doubling existing tax rates. The Obama regime also wants to reinstate the old levels of the death tax and the marriage penalty.
The Obama regime wants to make as much of the US income government property as possible.
You people believe as Obama does that government is the answer to everything. That nothing functions without involvement of government. You view achievement success and wealth as criminal. You want government to punish people you don't like.
There is not one single thing the federal government does that is within budget and on time. What makes you people believe that permitting government more confiscation will make Washington any more efficient?
Once again...Government does not have a funding problem. It has a spending problem.
You know this. However, you despise anyone who you view as having "too much". So you want the government to punish them in order to make YOU feel better.
On jobs and wages, please spare us the gung ho labor union mantra.

 

[Fordsflylow]

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

You think you are smart..
The Obama regime is proposing the largest tax increase in the history of the US.
They want to drop the Bush tax cuts in their entirety. They want to raise the rate on capital gains to the same levels as income essentially doubling existing tax rates. The Obama regime also wants to reinstate the old levels of the death tax and the marriage penalty.
The Obama regime wants to make as much of the US income government property as possible.
You people believe as Obama does that government is the answer to everything. That nothing functions without involvement of government. You view achievement success and wealth as criminal. You want government to punish people you don't like.
There is not one single thing the federal government does that is within budget and on time. What makes you people believe that permitting government more confiscation will make Washington any more efficient?
Once again...Government does not have a funding problem. It has a spending problem.
You know this. However, you despise anyone who you view as having "too much". So you want the government to punish them in order to make YOU feel better.
On jobs and wages, please spare us the gung ho labor union mantra.

You really need to get off that right-wing spin media machine you swallow, it's doing your rants nothing. Be real good for you do as do I and that is start looking, listening, witnessing the other side's take on things. Then fact check both and see which side passes the stink test before coming here and trying to spread your hear-say bs. While your at it quit TRYING to tell me and anyone who'll read your tripe what "I" think.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

Please describe your plan, how it works, and the benefits derived from it by all?

 

[Fordsflylow]

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

Please describe your plan, how it works, and the benefits derived from it by all?

Easy enough! A good starting point would be to go back to the tax rates during clinton when the economy was adding jobs and we actually had a surplus, which is all the dem's are proposing to begin with.

Catch the minimum wage up to the inflation that has deflated it. When the vast majority of consumers have disposable income to spend, EVERYONE does well. Not just those at the top as it is now.

Do away with all those gimmee subsidies/welfare for the rich for the 1%'ers, that they have been enjoying for decades.

No more "no-bid contracts" for privatizing wars and CUT the military budget not increase it like it has for decades.

Invest in the nations majority of people through education and bring us back up where we belong.

Need anymore? I got plenty, but I don't have all the time in the world you SUPPOSED working folks apparently do while you spend endless hours here on these boards lying, misleading, hating, etc. and claiming you aren't.

The con's avoid answering questions then claim those of us who are independents or lib's don't. Con's here on these boards, just like their heroes in lalaland DC, don't want compromise they want everything there way which has never worked and will never work. History has teachable moments to those with open minds minus partison bs and/or selective amnesia.

 

[logical4u]

Isn't the govt ran by the wealthy? Obviously the answer is yes it is. So, this should easily explain why trickle-down economics is a flat out failure and was based on a scam.

If the gov't is run by the wealthy, it is because, we the people, elected the wealthy to office. For Democrats, corruption is a plus when running for public office. Not saying that republicans are not corrupt, just that corrupt republicans are not usually voted back into office after their faults are exposed.

Trickle down economics: character AA has money. AA has a houseful of furniture and cars in the garage. AA has investments and works to increase their income. With more money and less time AA needs someone to help with the house, another person to do odd jobs, and another person to take care of the lawn (3 part time jobs). AA doesn't have time to cook every night, so AA pays to have meals made (at a restraunt or at home). Because so many people are relying on AA, medical staff are used for regular checkups (not the emergency room, but prime paying hours). As the income of AA increases, most of the things in the house and the garage will be replaced with better items. The old things will be sold or given to charity with plenty of use (value items). Vacations will be taken contributing to the wages of hotel/lodging staffs, tourists destinations, and more restraunts.

So you have a person that contributes to tens of peoples wages in a given month. If there are enough people doing that, it makes more opportunites for people working in the service industries. The people that make gadgets have a person that will buy them. The people making the latest, greatest _____ will have someone to buy their product.

That is just the practical side of things. If they are involved with their community, or charities, there will be more contributions to those that have less.

FlipFlop:
Money is taken from those that have it in "unfair" amounts. The people that have money hide it, do not spend it in this country, and do not make purchases that indicate they have money.
The money is given to the "poor" who spend it extravagantly on name brand items, and products they would not buy otherwise. Only a superficial (appearance and status items), not value items like good furniture, appliances and quality vehicles) economy is supported with no growth. Because the "income" does not increase (standard of living increases not included because they usually match the economy), nothing different is purchased. They do not have enough money to "grow" the service industries. They cannot afford to build homes based on their increasing incomes. They do not have a lawn or do not use lawn services. They make the relatively inexpensive items in their homes or parked outside last as long as possible (when it dies, it is usually trash, no value there).

You have a choice: old and busted (the trickle up poverty) where people do as little as possible and complain their lives aren't better or the people that are always trying to improve their own lives and because of that, improve the lives of those around them. If you choose trickle up poverty, vote for the fraud in the white house, again.

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

Those "poor" people have the same roads, infrastructure and teachers as the "self-starters" tha Obama claims didn't do it by themselves. There is no difference in where they started and where many of the "poor" are today. According to Obama theories, you should all be starting your own businesses because your "care" about job creation. So, why, don't the liberals start more businesses to "provide jobs"?

Obama says everyone should pay their fair share. After you start charging the 49% of the population that pay no income taxes at least 10% of their income, let us see if you are willing to raise taxes across the board (just to be "fair).

People are free to agree to an offered salary or walk away. There are no legal slaves in the USA. The people that work for them, do not need to work for them (maybe they should have gone out and started their own business)..... oh wait, that is just what some lawn maintenance and housecleaning services did (I guess you hate them because they pay their people less than the wealthy pay them?)

It sounds like you are having quite the pity party. No one has control over your life but you, and those that you willingly allow to control you. The citizens haven't been re-classified as subjects, yet (that would be after the fraud in the white house got re-elected by Obamazombies). Maybe you should start your own business so you can pay the people that work for you, more than you make (just to show us how it is done). I am sure your family will appreciate your good will when they are hungry, need material things or want you to pay for something (as a wealthy business owner) that you cannot afford. Just tell them what a wonderful, generous person you are, and they will just be thrilled!

 

[logical4u]

Taxes are a necessary evil if one wants a country in which to practice "true" capitalism. Regardless, even if we had true capitalism, the economic structure is unsustainable long-term. We cannot be at war, so to speak/write, with our home. Where the more efficient the destruction of our home equals greater prosperity for a relative few of the many. Makes no sense, but then I see many of you blind con followers here can't add 1+1 so.....

As for reg's, do you like clean air? Clean water? Consumer protection? Etc,.........? Do you honestly think the private sector is going to do the right thing without govt reg's? We can look back at history and see de-reg's have not even come close to working, nor will it ever work. Private industry does not do what is right for the workers OR the consumers.

Got it, you support "trickle up poverty".

NO ONE is suggesting to remove all taxes. Many of us are suggesting to cutting wasteful spending in the gov't, and paring down the taxes to match less spending.
Regs: seriously? The democrats are writing regulations that cannot be enforced, and cannot be implemented without pricing services beyond the average citizen. Do you want reasonably clean water delivered to your home, or do you want to walk to a water source (maybe clean, maybe not) and carry it to your house in buckets? If the water standards continue to be made tighter, municipalities will not be able to provide "clean" water to their customers. The filtration and the pumps required will be too much to afford. Do you want clean air? If you continue to beat the electric companies with riduculous emission standards (CO2, really? what's next, deciding who can exhale?), electricity will be priced beyond the average consumer. How do you feel about burning wood or coal to stay warm? Forget air conditioning, electricity will be too expensive for that.
Not too many people have a problem with practical regulations that can be enforced fairly easily. Making regulations that are selectively applied to political enemies is taking corporate greed to a whole new level.

Take a look around you. What would you do without electricity? Could you find water without turning on a spiget? In voting and demanding the best of everything, consider first if you will be able to afford it first. Regulating the things that make our lives easier to the point of extinction will not make anyone's air or water cleaner. It will have the opposite effect.

A consumer driven economy built this nation, not the other way around bonehead. You obviously haven't a clue as to how real capitalism works and until you do I'm not wasting my time on your wasted mind.

Did you see that attack rabbit? Run away, run away.

A consumer driven economy? Explain how companies that were making products, never seen before made it. The consumers would not demand something they did not know existed, yet this country is full of examples of companies that sold "brand new" ideas.

Great answers to the questions BTW. Why is it when you ask liberals practical questions, they get more uptight than clams?

 

[logical4u]

One would think by all the whining on the right/con side that obama/dems were trying to raise taxes on those making over $250k/yr by 30%, instead of the measly ass 2% he's proposing. THEN those same scam artists, the ones rattling and the idiots buying the bs, while trying to get anyone who can't think on their own like yourself to ignore the FACT that the wealthy avoid paying taxes at all in many cases.

As usual you blind, deaf and dumb con's dance around with your usual rants about how the poor are the problem, and they somehow brought it all on themselves. Again apparently ignoring that the "SUPPOSED" job creators continue to reap while they cut jobs, wages, benefits, collective bargaining, etc, etc,......while totally ignoring the FACT that the poor exist due to the wealthy's excesses, greed, unpatriotic bs, etc....... and avoid paying taxes as well as getting more govt handouts than do the poor.

So he/she hires a few slaves paying them a pittance while hoarding oodles of money and should be applauded!?! Get f'n real!!

Please describe your plan, how it works, and the benefits derived from it by all?

Easy enough! A good starting point would be to go back to the tax rates during clinton when the economy was adding jobs and we actually had a surplus, which is all the dem's are proposing to begin with.

Catch the minimum wage up to the inflation that has deflated it. When the vast majority of consumers have disposable income to spend, EVERYONE does well. Not just those at the top as it is now.

Do away with all those gimmee subsidies/welfare for the rich for the 1%'ers, that they have been enjoying for decades.

No more "no-bid contracts" for privatizing wars and CUT the military budget not increase it like it has for decades.

Invest in the nations majority of people through education and bring us back up where we belong.

Need anymore? I got plenty, but I don't have all the time in the world you SUPPOSED working folks apparently do while you spend endless hours here on these boards lying, misleading, hating, etc. and claiming you aren't.

The con's avoid answering questions then claim those of us who are independents or lib's don't. Con's here on these boards, just like their heroes in lalaland DC, don't want compromise they want everything there way which has never worked and will never work. History has teachable moments to those with open minds minus partison bs and/or selective amnesia.

Raising taxes right now will put the economy in a tailspin.

Raising the minimum wage will give us double digit inflation (the people that make min wage will not be able to purchase more things, because those prices increase with min wage).

Hitting the 1%ers will stop domestic investment in this country (more jobs going overseas).

If the country has no protection (the military), it will not be a country for very long.

We already invest enormous amounts of capital in education (and that has been increasing for decades, too) with no improvements in the level or quality of education in this country. It is failing under the present system.


You got "plenty more", let's see them, cause what you put out so far is a recipe for disaster.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Please describe your plan, how it works, and the benefits derived from it by all?

Easy enough! A good starting point would be to go back to the tax rates during clinton when the economy was adding jobs and we actually had a surplus, which is all the dem's are proposing to begin with.

OK, let's start with taxes. Have you considered a possible overhaul of the entire system that would include eliminating deductions and dodges that make cheating and scamming the current system such a big problem? There's a very reasonable proposal that has been published that is fair and equitable at all income levels.

Catch the minimum wage up to the inflation that has deflated it. When the vast majority of consumers have disposable income to spend, EVERYONE does well. Not just those at the top as it is now.

What would you consider a reasonable minimum wage? How would implement such a mandate without necessarily driving up the cost of everything else?

Do away with all those gimmee subsidies/welfare for the rich for the 1%'ers, that they have been enjoying for decades.
Please specifically describe the subsidies/welfare you are talking about. Also, there are many more government subsidies that need to be addressed other that just those you claim benefit the wealthy.

No more "no-bid contracts" for privatizing wars and CUT the military budget not increase it like it has for decades.
How about just no more no-bid contracts, period?

Invest in the nations majority of people through education and bring us back up where we belong.
Describe what you mean by education? Should everyone acquire a degree, or do you envision some alternative training that would address the trades? Where does the funding come from and should government fund schooling beyond the basic K-12 now provided?

Need anymore? I got plenty, but I don't have all the time in the world you SUPPOSED working folks apparently do while you spend endless hours here on these boards lying, misleading, hating, etc. and claiming you aren't.

The con's avoid answering questions then claim those of us who are independents or lib's don't. Con's here on these boards, just like their heroes in lalaland DC, don't want compromise they want everything there way which has never worked and will never work. History has teachable moments to those with open minds minus partison bs and/or selective amnesia.

Now, just a gentle hint: if you really want a decent dialog, try not insulting you prospective partner and calling names. I understand how frustrating it can be at times, but I know I'd rather not open a discussion when experience has taught that the end result of any exchange ends like this post of yours.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Please describe your plan, how it works, and the benefits derived from it by all?

Easy enough! A good starting point would be to go back to the tax rates during clinton when the economy was adding jobs and we actually had a surplus, which is all the dem's are proposing to begin with.

OK, let's start with taxes. Have you considered a possible overhaul of the entire system that would include eliminating deductions and dodges that make cheating and scamming the current system such a big problem? There's a very reasonable proposal that has been published that is fair and equitable at all income levels.

Catch the minimum wage up to the inflation that has deflated it. When the vast majority of consumers have disposable income to spend, EVERYONE does well. Not just those at the top as it is now.

What would you consider a reasonable minimum wage? How would implement such a mandate without necessarily driving up the cost of everything else?

Do away with all those gimmee subsidies/welfare for the rich for the 1%'ers, that they have been enjoying for decades.
Please specifically describe the subsidies/welfare you are talking about. Also, there are many more government subsidies that need to be addressed other that just those you claim benefit the wealthy.

No more "no-bid contracts" for privatizing wars and CUT the military budget not increase it like it has for decades.
How about just no more no-bid contracts, period?

Invest in the nations majority of people through education and bring us back up where we belong.
Describe what you mean by education? Should everyone acquire a degree, or do you envision some alternative training that would address the trades? Where does the funding come from and should government fund schooling beyond the basic K-12 now provided?

Need anymore? I got plenty, but I don't have all the time in the world you SUPPOSED working folks apparently do while you spend endless hours here on these boards lying, misleading, hating, etc. and claiming you aren't.

The con's avoid answering questions then claim those of us who are independents or lib's don't. Con's here on these boards, just like their heroes in lalaland DC, don't want compromise they want everything there way which has never worked and will never work. History has teachable moments to those with open minds minus partison bs and/or selective amnesia.

Now, just a gentle hint: if you really want a decent dialog, try not insulting you prospective partner and calling names. I understand how frustrating it can be at times, but I know I'd rather not open a discussion when experience has taught that the end result of any exchange ends like this post of yours.

I'd be willing to take a look at the proposal before passing judgement.

Increasing the minimum wage has not been proven to increase the cost of everything else. It would however lessen the blow to programs for the needy if the working joe/jane had a decent livable wage. What is your take of Congress never failing to give themselves a raise over the decades while leaving the minimum wage to flounder? Study's (neutral) show that had the minimum wage kept up with inflation that existed since 1964, the minimum wage would be around $12/hr+. That seems a reasonable wage having worked for a living all my life. If the minimum wage was such then more folks could purchase products, services, etc. = consumer driven economy. Even the wealthy would be in good shape, as they were back when Eisenhower was Pres and they were taxed at 91%.

Oil, Ag, private military contractors just to name a few but equals billions in revenues for what is now their govt - bought and paid for. I also view tax breaks as subsides. A corporation should not be able to hire an army of accountants to skirt the rules, laws, etc. and pay nothing. In fact, many take advantage of the loopholes to the degree of getting actual $billions in refunds. Do you think it right that romney feels he can badmouth the govt even though he benefitted from the US govt? His vulture capitalism gig with bain took full advantage of govt handouts that went directly into his and a few others coffers. It was a win win bs situation for very few at the expense of the many, and some will vote for this schmuck!?!

How about cutting the MASSIVE military complexes budget as well? Totally ridiculous and unfounded as it is and has been for decades and PLENTY to cut. We have been and were warned by the founding fathers and many many intelligent people over the centuries to present time of the military complex and it's bottomless pit.

To blame the teacher unions, which is the usual gimmick of the con's, is imo a cop out. They are not perfect and could use some reforms, but to blame them as thee soul problem is not addressing the real problems. I've believed for years that every student who grad's 12th should not be allowed to go directly to college. They should be required to work for 4 years in the private or public sector's before being allowed to go on to college, and only be allowed had they carried a decent GPA during and upon graduation of high school. One thing is an absolute for sure imo, cutting the educational investment in our young people is a dead end road.

Imo If we as a nation just applied cuts to just the WASTE across the board would be more than enough cost savings.

One of my super pet peaves is there is not a mandatory conservation based class that is required/mandatory during all of k-12. We as humankind cannot continue to waste like we have been, it's simply unsustainable as well as harmful if not outright dangerous to our very existence.

We need more people to lead by example, not lead by do as I say not as I do. The only buck that stops at the govt as a whole's desk, and gets recognized, is from the fat cats - one of which is running for office of Pres this season and it isn't Obama.

My suggestion would be for you to direct your comment about insults, etc. to those who spew it nonstop AND have no real or substantive input other than insult(s). Goose and gander kinda thing!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Easy enough! A good starting point would be to go back to the tax rates during clinton when the economy was adding jobs and we actually had a surplus, which is all the dem's are proposing to begin with.

OK, let's start with taxes. Have you considered a possible overhaul of the entire system that would include eliminating deductions and dodges that make cheating and scamming the current system such a big problem? There's a very reasonable proposal that has been published that is fair and equitable at all income levels.

Catch the minimum wage up to the inflation that has deflated it. When the vast majority of consumers have disposable income to spend, EVERYONE does well. Not just those at the top as it is now.

What would you consider a reasonable minimum wage? How would implement such a mandate without necessarily driving up the cost of everything else?

Do away with all those gimmee subsidies/welfare for the rich for the 1%'ers, that they have been enjoying for decades.
Please specifically describe the subsidies/welfare you are talking about. Also, there are many more government subsidies that need to be addressed other that just those you claim benefit the wealthy.

No more "no-bid contracts" for privatizing wars and CUT the military budget not increase it like it has for decades.
How about just no more no-bid contracts, period?

Invest in the nations majority of people through education and bring us back up where we belong.
Describe what you mean by education? Should everyone acquire a degree, or do you envision some alternative training that would address the trades? Where does the funding come from and should government fund schooling beyond the basic K-12 now provided?

Need anymore? I got plenty, but I don't have all the time in the world you SUPPOSED working folks apparently do while you spend endless hours here on these boards lying, misleading, hating, etc. and claiming you aren't.

The con's avoid answering questions then claim those of us who are independents or lib's don't. Con's here on these boards, just like their heroes in lalaland DC, don't want compromise they want everything there way which has never worked and will never work. History has teachable moments to those with open minds minus partison bs and/or selective amnesia.

Now, just a gentle hint: if you really want a decent dialog, try not insulting you prospective partner and calling names. I understand how frustrating it can be at times, but I know I'd rather not open a discussion when experience has taught that the end result of any exchange ends like this post of yours.

I'd be willing to take a look at the proposal before passing judgement.

Increasing the minimum wage has not been proven to increase the cost of everything else. It would however lessen the blow to programs for the needy if the working joe/jane had a decent livable wage. What is your take of Congress never failing to give themselves a raise over the decades while leaving the minimum wage to flounder? Study's (neutral) show that had the minimum wage kept up with inflation that existed since 1964, the minimum wage would be around $12/hr+. That seems a reasonable wage having worked for a living all my life. If the minimum wage was such then more folks could purchase products, services, etc. = consumer driven economy. Even the wealthy would be in good shape, as they were back when Eisenhower was Pres and they were taxed at 91%.

Oil, Ag, private military contractors just to name a few but equals billions in revenues for what is now their govt - bought and paid for. I also view tax breaks as subsides. A corporation should not be able to hire an army of accountants to skirt the rules, laws, etc. and pay nothing. In fact, many take advantage of the loopholes to the degree of getting actual $billions in refunds. Do you think it right that romney feels he can badmouth the govt even though he benefitted from the US govt? His vulture capitalism gig with bain took full advantage of govt handouts that went directly into his and a few others coffers. It was a win win bs situation for very few at the expense of the many, and some will vote for this schmuck!?!

How about cutting the MASSIVE military complexes budget as well? Totally ridiculous and unfounded as it is and has been for decades and PLENTY to cut. We have been and were warned by the founding fathers and many many intelligent people over the centuries to present time of the military complex and it's bottomless pit.

To blame the teacher unions, which is the usual gimmick of the con's, is imo a cop out. They are not perfect and could use some reforms, but to blame them as thee soul problem is not addressing the real problems. I've believed for years that every student who grad's 12th should not be allowed to go directly to college. They should be required to work for 4 years in the private or public sector's before being allowed to go on to college, and only be allowed had they carried a decent GPA during and upon graduation of high school. One thing is an absolute for sure imo, cutting the educational investment in our young people is a dead end road.

Imo If we as a nation just applied cuts to just the WASTE across the board would be more than enough cost savings.

One of my super pet peaves is there is not a mandatory conservation based class that is required/mandatory during all of k-12. We as humankind cannot continue to waste like we have been, it's simply unsustainable as well as harmful if not outright dangerous to our very existence.

We need more people to lead by example, not lead by do as I say not as I do. The only buck that stops at the govt as a whole's desk, and gets recognized, is from the fat cats - one of which is running for office of Pres this season and it isn't Obama.

My suggestion would be for you to direct your comment about insults, etc. to those who spew it nonstop AND have no real or substantive input other than insult(s). Goose and gander kinda thing!

"Increasing the minimum wage has not been proven to increase the cost of everything else."
Perhaps not in the short run. However, a sharp increase in the minimum wage also leads to wage increases across the board. For example, in many union contracts, wages are indexed to the level of the min wage.
Additionally, small business is directly affected in that while the cost of labor is adjusted upward with no commensurate increase in revenues. Therefore prices must rise or fewer jobs will be offered. The end result of the increase is the owners of businesses being forced to make up the difference.
As for the rest of your complaints, the best path is for you to petition the government to end the policies to which you object.
Simply increasing taxes and your 91% panacea argument simply won't do.
Fiscal responsibility on the part of Capitol Hill is the FIRST step toward federal solvency.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'd be willing to take a look at the proposal before passing judgement.

OK, take a serious look at Neil Boortz's "Fair Tax" proposal. I mean, maybe red the book he wrote. That way you'll get good, indepth information to consider. It's a good idea. Probably never happen with the elected representation and the appointed wonks in government, but it's a great idea.

Increasing the minimum wage has not been proven to increase the cost of everything else. It would however lessen the blow to programs for the needy if the working joe/jane had a decent livable wage.

Increasing the minimum wage always impacts to cost of things and services over the longer course. It also results in fewer available jobs, over the short run. Face it, there are just some jobs not worth $12/hr.

What is your take of Congress never failing to give themselves a raise over the decades while leaving the minimum wage to flounder? Study's (neutral) show that had the minimum wage kept up with inflation that existed since 1964, the minimum wage would be around $12/hr+. That seems a reasonable wage having worked for a living all my life. If the minimum wage was such then more folks could purchase products, services, etc. = consumer driven economy. Even the wealthy would be in good shape, as they were back when Eisenhower was Pres and they were taxed at 91%.

I've said this before, right now, Congress has it rigged so they actually have to vote NOT to get a raise. Their raises are automatic. Personally, I think that only the people that they work for should approve their raises. I.E. every year when the electorate votes, there should be a question on the ballot: "Do you approve of giving Sen./Rep.______ a raise in pay?

Oil, Ag, private military contractors just to name a few but equals billions in revenues for what is now their govt - bought and paid for. I also view tax breaks as subsides. A corporation should not be able to hire an army of accountants to skirt the rules, laws, etc. and pay nothing. In fact, many take advantage of the loopholes to the degree of getting actual $billions in refunds. Do you think it right that romney feels he can badmouth the govt even though he benefitted from the US govt? His vulture capitalism gig with bain took full advantage of govt handouts that went directly into his and a few others coffers. It was a win win bs situation for very few at the expense of the many, and some will vote for this schmuck!?!

Again, I have no problem forcing big business, unions, and any large for-profit or non-profit organization out of politics. Those running for office should be limited to collecting donations ONLY from individuals, and ONLY from whatever government division they will be representing. As for tax breaks, etc., read the "Fair Tax" proposal. Those are covered, too.

How about cutting the MASSIVE military complexes budget as well? Totally ridiculous and unfounded as it is and has been for decades and PLENTY to cut. We have been and were warned by the founding fathers and many many intelligent people over the centuries to present time of the military complex and it's bottomless pit.

The military has needed an audit for as long as I can remember. But you can say the same about every government agency in existence today.

To blame the teacher unions, which is the usual gimmick of the con's, is imo a cop out. They are not perfect and could use some reforms, but to blame them as thee soul problem is not addressing the real problems. I've believed for years that every student who grad's 12th should not be allowed to go directly to college. They should be required to work for 4 years in the private or public sector's before being allowed to go on to college, and only be allowed had they carried a decent GPA during and upon graduation of high school. One thing is an absolute for sure imo, cutting the educational investment in our young people is a dead end road.

Imo If we as a nation just applied cuts to just the WASTE across the board would be more than enough cost savings.

One of my super pet peaves is there is not a mandatory conservation based class that is required/mandatory during all of k-12. We as humankind cannot continue to waste like we have been, it's simply unsustainable as well as harmful if not outright dangerous to our very existence.

We need more people to lead by example, not lead by do as I say not as I do. The only buck that stops at the govt as a whole's desk, and gets recognized, is from the fat cats - one of which is running for office of Pres this season and it isn't Obama.

My suggestion would be for you to direct your comment about insults, etc. to those who spew it nonstop AND have no real or substantive input other than insult(s). Goose and gander kinda thing!

I gotta go, I have a flight. I hate doing this on my ipad, though. I'll parse more later. GW

 

[Widdekind]

Workers' wages have kept pace with inflation. As the general level of prices (P) has inflated, wages (W) have generally increased comparably. Real wages (W/P) are about as high today, as in the 1970s:

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/04/has-middle-americas-wages-stagnated/#.UB8jq2jhDJx
Real wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Meanwhile, the economy (GDP) has grown faster than inflation. And, the share of GDP flowing to the top 1% of income-earners has grown faster than the economy.

http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/mg21528752.100/1-inequality-who-are-the-1-per-cent.html
Slate_IncomeSlides-03​

Overall, workers have not lost; but neither have they gained; whereas highest income earners have gained & gained again. In analogy, workers still have their Chevrolets & Ford pickups; whilst highest income earners have bought bigger houses, bigger garages, & expensive foreign sports cars. Nobody has lost; only some have gained.

Why have highest income earners gained? Most of their income derives from executive salaries & stock-market trading.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/atkinson-piketty-saezJEL10.pdf​

Seemingly, today, managers are also owners; lawfully exercising their ownership rights, in shareholder meetings, executives vote themselves higher salaries; and also vote their businesses to buy back their stock, as "(net) share repurchases", essentially voting themselves portions of their businesses' profits. That may be greedy, and may not be best for their businesses; but, as owners, "it is their car, and they can drive it how they want". If they are bad business managers, pocketing profits, instead of investing for the future; then those businesses will, ultimately, be driven out of the market, e.g. bought by foreigners.

From a Libertarian perspective, workers have nothing to complain about. Nobody is forcing them to work. And their work earns them about the same real wage. However, there may be direct competition, between workers & manager/owners. For, increases in corporate profits, which the latter are voting to themselves, occur because the wages of the former are held in cheque. According to Goldman Sachs:

'The most important contribution to the higher profit margins over the past five years [2001-2006] has been a decline in Labor's share of national income.'

Manager/owners want lower wages, so they can have higher profits. Likewise, workers want lower prices, so they can have higher savings. Everybody wants to spend less, and save more. That's economics. If workers want to influence the businesses they work for, then workers could buy those businesses (purchase their stock). Workers have already saved large amounts of money, in pension funds; perhaps those pension funds could be used, to buy stock, so that workers have a strong representation, at shareholder meetings, and on the boards of directors, of "their" businesses. Private-sector solutions already exist (buy stock); government involvement is not needed.

 

[Friends]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

Like much of the Constitution the general welfare clause is open to various interpretations.