steal from the rich to give to the......(not poor)

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success. Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

Here's a novel idea......CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Democrats in DC should be known as the Real Houswives of DC.

 

[Truthmatters]

you people have no shame do you?

 

[PredFan]

you people have no shame do you?

We have nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Truthmatters]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

Here is a novel idea for you TM.

Let people keep what THEY earned and quit promising one persons money to another.

 

[PredFan]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

So what?

You libs function on the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that the only reason someone isn't wealthy is because another person is. You believe that so that you don't have to face the fact that those people aren't wealthy because of the poor choices they have made in their lives.

Another stupid idea that is bounced around is this 99% bullshit. I'm not in the 1% but I'm not in YOUR 99%. I have the money I have because it's the amount of money that I have earned. I could be making more money right now had I chose to get more education and make the sacrifices, I chose not to. Money and wealth wasn't important enough to me to go further than I did.

Congrats to the 1%, my hat's off to you.

 

[imbalance]

A simple understanding of the laws of supply and demand go a long way in explaining the root of wage inequality. Over the past few decades the high-tech sector of the US economy has expanded as the manufacturing sector has contracted. Partly due to illegal immigration, the supply of unskilled workers has inflated over these decades while the demand for unskilled workers has fallen. Any time supply rises as demand falls the equilibrium price (wage) drops.

Meanwhile, demand for skilled workers has risen while the supply has not kept pace, hence the equilibrium price (wage) has increased. And by skilled workers I don't mean someone who spent six years getting a liberal arts degree in ethnic studies; we have to import engineers from Asia and other parts of the world to try meet the demand for these skilled workers yet we still have a shortage.

QFT

As far as the 1% expanding wealth/ownership; that's a direct result of crony socialism. When you have so many federal regulatory agencies, the regulation laws inevitably become legislated by the highest bidders with the most entrenched lobbyists so that they can be used to eliminate market competition creating virtual monopolists with an overwhelming gravitational pull on capital.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes your right those CEOs of the lending industry so deserved and earned those bounuses they gave themselves after FUCKING the entire country in their scam.

You people are insane if you think your historically failed arguments are going to get ANY traction in this country after the Complete FUCKING of our economy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

So what?

You libs function on the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that the only reason someone isn't wealthy is because another person is. You believe that so that you don't have to face the fact that those people aren't wealthy because of the poor choices they have made in their lives.

Another stupid idea that is bounced around is this 99% bullshit. I'm not in the 1% but I'm not in YOUR 99%. I have the money I have because it's the amount of money that I have earned. I could be making more money right now had I chose to get more education and make the sacrifices, I chose not to. Money and wealth wasn't important enough to me to go further than I did.

Congrats to the 1%, my hat's off to you.

At the heart of the left's complaint isn't only that someone isn't wealthy because someone else is. It's that if someone has wealth or assets, they FORCIBLY wrested it from some other person. This allows them justification to use force to "take it back".

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't believe Democrats hate the rich.

First of all every one of them is rich, or became rich from insider trading while in office.

Secondly, all of their friends are rich. George Soros, Steven Speilberg, the late Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, 70% percent of Hollywood, Oprah, David Letterman, etc.

Thirdly, under their watch the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Last of all, in a free country there will always be wealth inequality. In a communist country the leaders are the rich, everyone else is poor. There is no country on Earth where there isn't inequality. Anyone who believes this Marxist drivel is ether living in denial or hopelessly stupid.

 

[Full-Auto]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success. Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

Here's a novel idea......CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Democrats in DC should be known as the Real Houswives of DC.

Democrats dont hate the rich, they were right there being paid, for the tax breaks just like the repubs.

They want the useful idiots known as their base to hate the rich.

A Magicians trick, look at this hand while the other takes your wallet.

 

[PredFan]

Yes your right those CEOs of the lending industry so deserved and earned those bounuses they gave themselves after FUCKING the entire country in their scam.

You people are insane if you think your historically failed arguments are going to get ANY traction in this country after the Complete FUCKING of our economy.

The CEOs of the lending industry didn't fuck the economy. Put down the Kool Aid and get educated.

 

[PredFan]

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[7] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[8][9][10]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[11] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[11][12][13] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928

So what?

You libs function on the false notion that there is a finite amount of wealth and that the only reason someone isn't wealthy is because another person is. You believe that so that you don't have to face the fact that those people aren't wealthy because of the poor choices they have made in their lives.

Another stupid idea that is bounced around is this 99% bullshit. I'm not in the 1% but I'm not in YOUR 99%. I have the money I have because it's the amount of money that I have earned. I could be making more money right now had I chose to get more education and make the sacrifices, I chose not to. Money and wealth wasn't important enough to me to go further than I did.

Congrats to the 1%, my hat's off to you.

At the heart of the left's complaint isn't only that someone isn't wealthy because someone else is. It's that if someone has wealth or assets, they FORCIBLY wrested it from some other person. This allows them justification to use force to "take it back".

Agreed.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yes your right those CEOs of the lending industry so deserved and earned those bounuses they gave themselves after FUCKING the entire country in their scam.

You people are insane if you think your historically failed arguments are going to get ANY traction in this country after the Complete FUCKING of our economy.

They paid themselves (as you put it) with their own fucking money nitwit. Meanwhile Obama bailed out Freddie and Fannie and those fucktards got huge bonuses with OUR MONEY. Yet not a peep from you.

Sit down and stfu

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes your right those CEOs of the lending industry so deserved and earned those bounuses they gave themselves after FUCKING the entire country in their scam.

You people are insane if you think your historically failed arguments are going to get ANY traction in this country after the Complete FUCKING of our economy.

So after 2 years of Dem control it not only didn't change but got even worse.....what would a rational person think was the cause?

Perhaps you're blaming the wrong folks maybe?

Nah.....you'll never admit that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success. Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

Here's a novel idea......CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!

Democrats in DC should be known as the Real Houswives of DC.

Democrats dont hate the rich, they were right there being paid, for the tax breaks just like the repubs.

They want the useful idiots known as their base to hate the rich.

A Magicians trick, look at this hand while the other takes your wallet.

You misunderstand the ideology of the left. They deserve to be wealthy because they are special. They know more, are more sensitive, are more caring and better able to shepherd YOUR money.

Have you ever heard a sleazy evangelist justify using donations to support a sleazy lavish lifestyle? They say the same things, they are special, more deserving because they are working for the little people.

 

[Dragon]

Democrats clearly hate the rich and despise their success. Now they want to take from the rich to give to the MIDDLE CLASS on a payroll tax cut.

It's no longer for the poor. They simply want to punish the rich at every opportunity.

You almost had it. That last sentence blew it for you, though. No, it's not to "punish the rich," or to punish anyone.

Actually, Occupy gives you, in its most famous slogan, the clue. It's the 99% versus the 1%. Do you suppose that 99% of the American people are poor, that is, have incomes below the poverty line? No. Things are bad, but they're not THAT bad. No, it's for the benefit, not of the poor (or not just the poor), but of the non-rich -- the 99%.

And it's not just a moral issue, either, but also an economic one. The wider wealth is distributed throughout society, the better the economy does. That's because the limiting factor on economic growth isn't capital accumulation but consumer demand, and narrower income gaps with widespread prosperity make for higher consumer demand than concentration of wealth in a few hands.

But it's a moral issue, too. Not the moral issue of concern for poverty, but simply for rewarding responsibility and hard work, rather than under-rewarding these things so that we can over-reward greed, rapaciousness, cunning, and ability to game the system.

We can have government policies that favor and encourage maximum ability of a few people to get very, very rich. Or we can have government policies that favor and encourage the ability of a maximum number of people doing well, and entering (and remaining in) the middle class. But we can't have both, because these goals are antithetical.

In my opinion, the goal of advancing the middle class is more honorable and morally better than advancing the rich. And, not just in my opinion but in demonstrable FACT, that's also better for the economy.

 

[BluePhantom]

In my opinion, the goal of advancing the middle class is more honorable and morally better than advancing the rich. And, not just in my opinion but in demonstrable FACT, that's also better for the economy.

I would tend to agree with your last statement and I would suggest that most Republicans do as well...it's the method that Democrats employ that is the issue. You don't advance the middle class simply by raping the rich and re-distributing wealth. You do it by creating an environment where the middle class (or poor) has greater opportunity to accomplish it themselves. We already have a poor class that is dependent upon government for their survival. We don't need a middle class stuck in that situation as well.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Justify this "stealing from the rich" claim.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Justify this "stealing from the rich" claim.

A surtax on the rich to GIVE to the middle class is theft. Period. I don't give a shit how legal taxes are in general. When you use a legal weapon to unfairly punish one while raising another its theft plain and simple.