Let's Tax the Rich More!

[Skull Pilot]

Bush and the GOP didn't need the two wars to break pork records:

In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills.

Where were you tea baggers then?

31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem
In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills. In his weekend radio address, President Bush called on Congress to reform this earmarking process:

[O]ne of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks. … My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:

– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”

– Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY), “a target of Democrats in this year’s midterm elections,” secured “a $3.5 million research grant for a local surgical team. The funds came not from congressional earmarks but from Pentagon accounts, according to the report.”

– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.”

Bush may say he’s against pork, but in his six years as President, Bush has never once vetoed any of Congress’s pork-laden spending bills.

This was from 2006, before the Dems took over Congress. NOT ONE VETO when the GOP were breaking pork records. And don't blame Bush 100%, because it was Tom Delay's GOP and also Dennis Hastert.

Think Progress » 31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem

So can you see why we don't think you are being genuine? You are against pork when the Dems are in charge. You are against the social programs we like. Well, you lost the election, so we are cutting waste (the programs you like) and we are funding programs we like.

And did you see the part where Bush hid pork in Pentagon spending? Obama is transparent. At least a lot more than Bush was. Just like Clinton had a surplus. At least compared to the GOP Presidents he did.

And I never voted for Bush so what's your point?

Of course you didn't... heh heh

Alright I'll ask you the same thing I've asked other Dimwit Dimocrats here. Find a post where I have ever supported GWB and then tell me how I voted as if you know.

I think you'll find that I have always been against the iraq and Afghanistan wars and that i have consistently called GW a moron.

But then again you like most here can't seem to think outside of a very narrowly defined paradigm where if one dis agrees with you they must be a republican.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I kind of like living in a country where thanks to SS we don't have hordes of the disable, survivors or old folks living under freeways.

I think Skull would prefer to move the elders of his family into his barn and charge them rent.

I don't have any elders in my family. But if i did, they, like me would be smart enough to save for retirement and not count on the fucking government. And I wouldn't rent my barn to anyone because my wood shop and pool room/pub is in there and I won't give that up for anyone.

 

[sealybobo]

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

As usual you presume incorrectly.

I would support a flat tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I would support a national sales tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I am for the abolition of Social Security and I am for people keeping that portion of their money to do with as they see fit.

As long as you know you are in the minority on social security. Imagine you are ready to retire and Jeb Bush deregulates Wallstreet at that time so that they can rape your 401k like they did last year. You'd be FUCKED! And no one to help you. Not even Ron Paul. Every man for himself Darwin type government? No thanks. Never gonna happen.

OF COURSE you are for a flat or sales tax IF it ends up being less than what you pay now.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!

 

[Iriemon]

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

As usual you presume incorrectly.

I would support a flat tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I would support a national sales tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I am for the abolition of Social Security and I am for people keeping that portion of their money to do with as they see fit.

Fair to say you'd support anything that lowered the taxes you'd have to pay you'd support it, if it increases the taxes you have to pay, you're agin it? No surprise there.

 

[sealybobo]

I kind of like living in a country where thanks to SS we don't have hordes of the disable, survivors or old folks living under freeways.

I think Skull would prefer to move the elders of his family into his barn and charge them rent.

I don't have any elders in my family. But if i did, they, like me would be smart enough to save for retirement and not count on the fucking government.

Chances are, social security would be part of their retirement plans. Without it, they probably would just never retire. For sure without medicare. That's another thing you will rely on the government for.

And they would want their social security for the same reason everyone else wants it. They paid into it. And if they opted out while the GOP were in charge, chances are their 401k's would get cut in half by wallstreet shinanigans, and then they'd be FUCKED, and you'd have to support them.

And so if they worked for Chrysler or Enron, they would have had their "savings" stolen fropm them by worthless CEO's.

Yea right, like your ancestors would have been smarter than the rest of us. What are you basing that on? If it is based on your intelligence, I'd say your ancestors were only a couple steps out of the cave.

 

[sealybobo]

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

As usual you presume incorrectly.

I would support a flat tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I would support a national sales tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I am for the abolition of Social Security and I am for people keeping that portion of their money to do with as they see fit.

Fair to say you'd support anything that lowered the taxes you'd have to pay you'd support it, if it increases the taxes you have to pay, you're agin it? No surprise there.

And I'm for eating food, but only food that tastes good, and is good for me.

And I'm for only fucking women that are beautiful, and willing.

And I'm in favor of more police, but not if they give me a ticket.

 

[MaggieMae]

You have this hang up that rich people are the "office staffers", don't you. Here's the facts: Most of the truly wealthy people started off with very little, most who are handed a fortune blow it long before they are old enough to retire and wind up broke as a joke with no punchline. "Office staffers", the morons who sit on their asses all day doing nothing but getting paid for it just because they have a degree, are not rich, they are actually middle class. These office staffers could be blamed for the state of the economy, most won't live within their means and know too little about budgeting money, so they get credit and spend money that doesn't even exist. The rich people, the truly wealthy, then have to bail them out all the time to keep their employees since they were conned into thinking that a degree actually means something. Some are now hiring people like me, though I remain freelance I still get the calls from business owners looking to get something fixed that a person with a degree fucked up. I could get wealthy, I'm just happy where I am and trying to increase my workload isn't something I am yet ready to handle (baby steps as they say). I was well off before, just at the middle class level, and lost it all ... and I mean ALL of it. So I have seen this from all sides, all angles, and guess what? The richest of the rich were the ones that were there to help, not the middle class who were in too much debt to cover their own asses. Tax the rich more and fewer people like me will be able to get anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Of course that is COMPLETELY untrue. I wonder how many people in the top tier tax bracket of 39% in the 90's were complaining so loudly then? I sure never heard any of it, and I worked and played in Los Angeles and mingled with rich, not-so-rich, and poor all the time. I wonder if these conversations would even be had if Bush hadn't insisted that "he was going to give back some of that surplus to the people" and instituted two major tax cuts? Now that Obama wants to roll it back to the level under Clinton, my God, you'd think the ozone layer had burst through for all the yelping we're hearing from the Greedy Brigade. And the MOST ironic part is those who were "rich" then are even "richer" now and can well afford to pay the higher rate.

I'm lost. Do you agree with me or not?

And Obama isn't ending Bush's tax cuts. He's just letting them expire as they are supposed to. Obama can do NOTHING and the bush tax breaks will end in 2011.

Now will the GOP fight to have them made permanent? Of course.

What hangup do I have?

I think you're confusing what I wrote in response to Kitten's. I screwed it up by highlighting her last point in red, which caught the

imbed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

As usual you presume incorrectly.

I would support a flat tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I would support a national sales tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I am for the abolition of Social Security and I am for people keeping that portion of their money to do with as they see fit.

As long as you know you are in the minority on social security. Imagine you are ready to retire and Jeb Bush deregulates Wallstreet at that time so that they can rape your 401k like they did last year. You'd be FUCKED! And no one to help you. Not even Ron Paul. Every man for himself Darwin type government? No thanks. Never gonna happen.

OF COURSE you are for a flat or sales tax IF it ends up being less than what you pay now.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!

Well booboo unlike some I know enough to NOT have the bulk of my retirement money in equities in the 5 years before I retire so don't you worry about me.

i was taught to be responsible with my money, not live above my means and to not count of fucking power hungry corrupt politicians to take care of me and if more people did the same this country would be a lot better off.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think Skull would prefer to move the elders of his family into his barn and charge them rent.

I don't have any elders in my family. But if i did, they, like me would be smart enough to save for retirement and not count on the fucking government.

Chances are, social security would be part of their retirement plans. Without it, they probably would just never retire. For sure without medicare. That's another thing you will rely on the government for.

And they would want their social security for the same reason everyone else wants it. They paid into it. And if they opted out while the GOP were in charge, chances are their 401k's would get cut in half by wallstreet shinanigans, and then they'd be FUCKED, and you'd have to support them.

And so if they worked for Chrysler or Enron, they would have had their "savings" stolen fropm them by worthless CEO's.

Yea right, like your ancestors would have been smarter than the rest of us. What are you basing that on? If it is based on your intelligence, I'd say your ancestors were only a couple steps out of the cave.

Bullshit. Anyone who has ever taken a financial planning course is taught NOT to factor in social Security because chances are it will be utterly bankrupt by the time anyone under 50 is ready to retire.

I have never factored SS into my plans and anyone who does deserves what they get which will be a whole lot of nothing.

And really Enron employees made a fatal mistake by investing too heavily in Enron stock. if they had bothered to see a financial planner or educate themselves, they would have known that you never, never , never put more than 5% of your retirement money into the stock of a company you work for.

And who said anything about ancestors. the term was elders and my elders who have all died by the way and hence I have no elders in my family were smart enough to save for retirement. So like me they did not depend on the government.

And before you all start saying i inherited a ton of money, I didn't my elders were all blue collar workers and did not retire rich but they did retire well mainly because they did not count on the government to take care of them.

 

[editec]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

 

[MatthewAycock]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

Great point editec.

 

[Iriemon]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

Good post, the really rich -- those making millions and billions, have been laughing all the way to the bank since their think tanks came up with the "supply side" sales scheme.

Obama should put a 10% tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

but why do you think taxes should not be raised on the wealthy now?

They were raised from 26% to 68% in the great depression, and after that the economy turned around and took off.

I understand the goal of a stimulus, but if the wealthy are taking their extra money and putting it into CDs, how is that helping the economy if the banks aren't lending and demand is falling?

 

[editec]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

Good post, the really rich -- those making millions and billions, have been laughing all the way to the bank since their think tanks came up with the "supply side" sales scheme.

That worked damned well BECAUSE of the bourgiouse class likes to imagine that some day they too will become superwealthy. Fools!

Obama should put a 10% tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

Not now though.

but why do you think taxes should not be raised on the wealthy now?

Because right now this nation is dealing with the sense that there isn't enough money in circulation because so many of us lost so much in the market and in our real estate values.

We are headed toward STAGFLATION right now.

They were raised from 26% to 68% in the great depression, and after that the economy turned around and took off.

Our economy is not the same NOW as it was then.

I understand the goal of a stimulus, but if the wealthy are taking their extra money and putting it into CDs, how is that helping the economy if the banks aren't lending and demand is falling?

If anything we ought to be encouraging the superwealthy to invest IN industrialization in AMERICA.

And we ought to be taxing the ever loving crap out of anyone who is importing manufactured goods in this nation.

As to former US corporations which moved the HQ offshore to avoid taxes, and even got TAX BREAKS to make that move?

Those corporations should be given a choice..move back here and pay your taxes or never again do any kind of business in THIS nation.

I don't hate the rich, I hate the parasitic rich who has bought out congress outright such that they distorted our laws to benefit them as they deindustrialized our nation.

We are becoming a third world nation thanks to these insane policies.

 

[Iriemon]

but why do you think taxes should not be raised on the wealthy now?

Because right now this nation is dealing with the sense that there isn't enough money in circulation because so many of us lost so much in the market and in our real estate values.

That is the point.

Generalizing of course, but the wealthy are taking the extra money, putting it CDs or Treasuries, and the banks aren't lending.

So lower taxes in this environment, like the GD, are nto getting more money in circulation.

You could cut taxes to -0- and if folks take the money and put it under mattresses there is no stimulus, no more demand created.

On the other hand, when the Govt builds a bridge, that creates jobs and demand.

We are headed toward STAGFLATION right now.

I've seen no signs that inflation is a problem. And the economy is not stagnating. Only wish it were. It is declining.

Our economy is not the same NOW as it was then.

Of course, but the fundamental problem is the same - recession caused by credit freeze by banks.

I understand the goal of a stimulus, but if the wealthy are taking their extra money and putting it into CDs, how is that helping the economy if the banks aren't lending and demand is falling?

If anything we ought to be encouraging the superwealthy to invest IN industrialization in AMERICA.[/quote]

But they aren't. That is the problem.

And we ought to be taxing the ever loving crap out of anyone who is importing manufactured goods in this nation.

Slapping on tariffs was a disaster in the GD and would be a disaster now, IMO.

As to former US corporations which moved the HQ offshore to avoid taxes, and even got TAX BREAKS to make that move?

I think corporate taxes should be eliminated. but beyond that I agree with eliminating loopholes.

I don't hate the rich, I hate the parasitic rich who has bought out congress outright such that they distorted our laws to benefit them as they deindustrialized our nation.

We are becoming a third world nation thanks to these insane policies.

I hear ya

 

[Care4all]

I don't have any elders in my family. But if i did, they, like me would be smart enough to save for retirement and not count on the fucking government.

Chances are, social security would be part of their retirement plans. Without it, they probably would just never retire. For sure without medicare. That's another thing you will rely on the government for.

And they would want their social security for the same reason everyone else wants it. They paid into it. And if they opted out while the GOP were in charge, chances are their 401k's would get cut in half by wallstreet shinanigans, and then they'd be FUCKED, and you'd have to support them.

And so if they worked for Chrysler or Enron, they would have had their "savings" stolen fropm them by worthless CEO's.

Yea right, like your ancestors would have been smarter than the rest of us. What are you basing that on? If it is based on your intelligence, I'd say your ancestors were only a couple steps out of the cave.

Bullshit. Anyone who has ever taken a financial planning course is taught NOT to factor in social Security because chances are it will be utterly bankrupt by the time anyone under 50 is ready to retire.

I have never factored SS into my plans and anyone who does deserves what they get which will be a whole lot of nothing.

And really Enron employees made a fatal mistake by investing too heavily in Enron stock. if they had bothered to see a financial planner or educate themselves, they would have known that you never, never , never put more than 5% of your retirement money into the stock of a company you work for.

And who said anything about ancestors. the term was elders and my elders who have all died by the way and hence I have no elders in my family were smart enough to save for retirement. So like me they did not depend on the government.

And before you all start saying i inherited a ton of money, I didn't my elders were all blue collar workers and did not retire rich but they did retire well mainly because they did not count on the government to take care of them.

no, that's bullshit from you.

We were taught to COUNT on social security as one leg of the 3 legged stool of retirement...that SS should be a third, your Pension from your work should be a third and your own personal savings outside of your retirements the last leg of the stool.

NO ONE has ever told any of us not to count on our SS....SS is our own money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The people who the FEDERAL tax codes are truly screwing are obviously NOT the poor...

Likewise the people getting screwed by the FEDERAL tax codes are obviously NOT the superwealthy, either.

The people who are really getting it put to them by the FEDERAL TAX codes are the better off working classes.

Why?

Well because they are augmenting the taxes that the superwealthy DON'T pay and the poor working classes CAN'T pay.

If you're one of those WORKING PEOPLE who is working his or her ass off to make a fine income, and you're getting hammered with a FEDERAL tax rate, HELL YES, I think you're getting screwed.

Now who are those people?

Doctors, lawyers, small businessmen etc. For THOSE people of modest affluence, I have sympathy, I really do.

But fior the multimilliones?

Their taxes ARE too low.

All that being said, I STILL do NOT believe that taxes should be raised RIGHT NOW.

The time to have corrected the lopsided way we've structured our taxes was BEFORE the depression struck.

But simply fixing the tax codes will NOT solve the problem American is having because the root of the problem in this economy has to do with the deindisturialization (which really means the decreasing investment into American industry) that has been going on every since FREE TRADE made it more sesible for industrialist to invest in manufacturing offshore and selling INTO our economy.

As long as that is happening, the changes in the tax codes are NOT going to solve the problem of the American economy.

Good post, the really rich -- those making millions and billions, have been laughing all the way to the bank since their think tanks came up with the "supply side" sales scheme.

Obama should put a 10% tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

but why do you think taxes should not be raised on the wealthy now?

They were raised from 26% to 68% in the great depression, and after that the economy turned around and took off.

I understand the goal of a stimulus, but if the wealthy are taking their extra money and putting it into CDs, how is that helping the economy if the banks aren't lending and demand is falling?

raising taxes did not turn the economy around. WWII did that

 

[MatthewAycock]

I see that some of my comments have been misread here.

My position is that a government should only collect enough in taxable revenue to protect its people from foreign invasion. They should not reallocate these funds into investments in individuals or corporations that fail miserably at contributing to the nation.

Our country focuses more on bailing out failure companies and people who will never push for any level of success. Betting on the failures is not the way to stay number one in the world.

Instead, this post was designed to point out how the target of annual income levels as earning the label of "rich" is ignorant and designed to oppress those in the middle class from using their hard efforts to make a better life for their families.

I think people should have the right to rise and fall on their own merits, the same should be true for companies. When a company or person falls and you bail them out that is socialism or communism, when you say to someone 'hey I will buy your company and make it better, or hey I could find you another job' that's capitalism as it should be. Not the corporate socialist paradise Obama wants to turn the USA into.

The new bankruptcy law (recently upheld) makes it very hard for individuals to just get "bailed" out. And the government doesn't just buy up failing companies willy-nilly. Without a bailout of the financial institutions, the entire credit cycle which PRIVATE ENTERPRISE needs to survive would have collapsed. Bailout of the auto industries was deemed necessary because it isn't just Detroit that would fall, it is the tens of thousands of SMALL BUSINESSES that support the auto industry (glass manufacturers, computer chips, rubber widgets, and a plethora of other "parts" that go into vehicles you wouldn't even think of).

Not true. The changes to the bankruptcy law, which are a few years old now, had virtually no impact in individuals that are below the median. The ones most impacted were those in the $150 - $500k a year range.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Chances are, social security would be part of their retirement plans. Without it, they probably would just never retire. For sure without medicare. That's another thing you will rely on the government for.

And they would want their social security for the same reason everyone else wants it. They paid into it. And if they opted out while the GOP were in charge, chances are their 401k's would get cut in half by wallstreet shinanigans, and then they'd be FUCKED, and you'd have to support them.

And so if they worked for Chrysler or Enron, they would have had their "savings" stolen fropm them by worthless CEO's.

Yea right, like your ancestors would have been smarter than the rest of us. What are you basing that on? If it is based on your intelligence, I'd say your ancestors were only a couple steps out of the cave.

Bullshit. Anyone who has ever taken a financial planning course is taught NOT to factor in social Security because chances are it will be utterly bankrupt by the time anyone under 50 is ready to retire.

I have never factored SS into my plans and anyone who does deserves what they get which will be a whole lot of nothing.

And really Enron employees made a fatal mistake by investing too heavily in Enron stock. if they had bothered to see a financial planner or educate themselves, they would have known that you never, never , never put more than 5% of your retirement money into the stock of a company you work for.

And who said anything about ancestors. the term was elders and my elders who have all died by the way and hence I have no elders in my family were smart enough to save for retirement. So like me they did not depend on the government.

And before you all start saying i inherited a ton of money, I didn't my elders were all blue collar workers and did not retire rich but they did retire well mainly because they did not count on the government to take care of them.

no, that's bullshit from you.

We were taught to COUNT on social security as one leg of the 3 legged stool of retirement...that SS should be a third, your Pension from your work should be a third and your own personal savings outside of your retirements the last leg of the stool.

NO ONE has ever told any of us not to count on our SS....SS is our own money.

Wow pension? Not too many companies have defined benefit pensions any more do they? Most retirement plans are defined contribution now. And really, when I got my securities licenses, it was obvious that not counting on SS is the best plan.

If you don't know this yet, what you call "your own money" has already been used to pay someone else or to shore up some other area of the government. You have nothing that is yours in Social Security. So when you do collect that pittance from SS it will actually be someone else's money and when the number of people drawing SS is greater than the number of people contributing, as it is very close to being now, only a couple things can happen. You get less, you have to retire later, and the taxes on everyone paying for you get raised.

You would be better off if that money was really your own money.

 

[Chris]

Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and that doubled the National Debt.

 

[MatthewAycock]

Raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and that doubled the National Debt.

Spending is what raised the national debt. What's rich by the way?