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

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Those on boards of publicly traded companies and privately held firms with investors take ALL of the risks.
It is THEIR money on the line.
Years ago the top brass were paid in salary. You people bitched about that. So companies especially those sensitive to consumers, decided to pay their top brass in stock options. Meaning, the people in charge were at risk vs the performance of the company.
Of course now you people scream "UNFAIR!!!!!"..
You can't have it both ways.
Do you believe that because the guy on the other side of your town is wealthy that he somehow prevents you from gaining more wealth or has somehow taken something from you? Does the way he lives have ANY affect on you whatsoever?

 

[The T]

We pay taxes to support our govt. And what mandate does our govt have? To protect NOT PROVIDE.

I don't think the left remembers what our governments foundation was based on and have since perverted its mandate beyond its original intent to the point that even the public is starting to believe their bullshit.

Been that way from the start. That changed in 1913 with the progressives under Wilson.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Yes. That is correct. We already have a system in place where anyone who has the ability to do their very best can in fact do that. That is until government gets in the way.
Small business, the backbone of our nation, is riddled with regulations and laws that make operating a small business an exercise in frustration.
As far as your problem with "the rich" is concerned...while it may be admirable to cheer fro the financial health of the middle class, your method of dealing with the issue is backward. Those on your side believe that lifting the bottom can only be accomplished by pushing down the top. That is illogical thinking and the policy has NEVER worked. All it does is give those of means the notion that if they spend or invest , government will be there to grab their cut...You people believe that if government controls wealth, it may become "your share"..

 

[PredFan]

Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth.

It does mean something. The working class is also the consumer class, so when productivity soars while wages stagnate, resulting in increased concentration of wealth at the top, consumer demand slumps relative to goods on the market, and we get an economy like -- well, like this one.

And that's their fault. Should have worked harder

They did.

Should have been paid more for working harder. And that's NOT their fault.

Wrong. It wasn't the increase in the disparity between the rich and the poor that cause this. You are confusing cause and effect.

And when I say worked harder, I meant their whole lives, you know like in school, or at their jobs. It's completely their fault if they aren't rich.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

When billionaire right wingers buy Republican politicians to change the laws so what was illegal becomes legal, then start a derivative scheme that brings down the world economy, you guys call it "good business". Because no one broke the law.

and Billionaire LEFT wing politicians and their operatives( George Soros, The Heinz family, the Kennedy family, Bill Gates)?....They are.........?
Your side's entire rich= GOP is pure bullshit. It presupposes the notion that all persons of wealth are republican conservatives. It also presupposes the notion that all large companies and corporations are 100% GOP supporters. Of course nothing of the kind even remotely resembles the truth.
As a matter of fact many large companies( Unions included) are large contributors to democrat candidates and liberal causes.
All this plays out to one very important fact. That is the left's anti wealth gimme gimme gimme crusade is based on total ignorance of the facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They need to pay us back after we cut and cut and cut their taxes and they screwed us and then got bailed out by us.

You seem to love welfare for the wealthy who fuck up but hate it when their gig is up and we make them pay us back.

WHY??????

Because

IT WAS THEIR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH.

Here is an IDIOT stating that the tarp money we gave the corps was their money originally?

you are a real shill

Who the fuck is talking about TARP money. BTW, none of us wanted the government to bail out any company. It was your side that supported this. Especially any company that has unionized workers.
When will you stop being an idiot?

 

[PredFan]

Chart 1, Shows the growing income inequality is the US.
Chart 2, Shows the drop of the working class's share of the National Income.

Yeah, so what? Educate yourself.



Garbage. Complete left wing nut bull shit. Read your own posts and other righty's post

]


Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth. And well, that's their fault isn't it. Should have worked harder, sucks to be them.

This is how those who claim there is a class war on the wealth think. Looking at the facts, it clearly shows who is winning the class warfare.

What it means that the working class's wages remain flat and fall behind inflation. This means less and less expendable income. As the working class is the consumer class in a economy driven 70% by consumer spending, it's no wonder that the US has a rough time recovering from recessions, it happened after the very small 2001 recession and again it's happening but this time with a very huge recession. If the working class isn't working hard, explain the high productivity. In other words, you would have been better off not responding, instead of posting your anti-working class BS.

Apples and oranges. The class warfare is being waged by Obama and the left, regardless of who you claim is winning. The rich don't demonize the poor, but the left demonizes the rich so that the ignorant poor will keep them in power. The left has no intention of making the poor better off. As long as they remain poor, they will continue to vote democrat.

You said the rich don't demonize the poor, true. But the right demonizes the poor and the working middle class as shown by your remarks. The right's focus is on helping the wealthy. The working class is a huge majority of the US population and it's a fact that the huge majority of Americans are losing out as their plunging share of the National Income shows. And you don't give a shit! Who is going to drive the US capitalistic consumer driven economy? That'd be Econ 101.

You believe this nonsense probably because you have to. if you could accept the truth, it would change the way you view things. You don't want that so you refuse. Just about everything you posted is exactly wrong, and I strongly expect that I'm wasting my time. my original respose to you is correct. If you don't believe it, i don't care.

 

[PredFan]

Apples and oranges. The class warfare is being waged by Obama and the left, regardless of who you claim is winning. The rich don't demonize the poor, but the left demonizes the rich so that the ignorant poor will keep them in power. The left has no intention of making the poor better off. As long as they remain poor, they will continue to vote democrat.

You hit this dead center on the nose. The last thing Democrats want is to get people out of poverty. The more money people have the more they want to keep it for themselves and that means the less likely they will be to vote Democrat. What Democrats want is to keep the poor's noses just slightly above water so they don't drown but they are dependent upon the Democrats to keep them from going under. The more people the Democrats can get "hooked on the government drug" the better their chances of staying in power.

What an original post!
I've seen this same train of thought posted at least 100 times on these boards alone!!!!
Is that an echo I hear?

Yeah, you will hear the truth a lot. Now whether you will listen is another story.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

20% own 85%.

that is fucking third world shit you idiots

Which means what?...None of you room temperature IQ plebes can go any further than " those people have too much"....
For a moment, let's say there is truth to your side's claim that wealth in the hands of too few is in fact a poor economic system.
TO secure that from being the case, the federal government suspends the part of the Declaration of Independence ( Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) and declares the institution of a "wealth cap"...
Now, where should all that "extra" wealth go? Should it go to government?..Should it be by government rule be spent on a new social safety net? Should a system of simple transfer payments be set up and redistributed however government sees fit, receive checks, the money is spent at the absolute discretion of the recipient...
At the end of the day your side's underlying message is "we need more money. and we want government to get it for us because we make the claim that those who have more than we are comfortable with should be forced to surrender it."
What say you? Or will you choose to run away from these questions?.
Strap on a pair and answer the questions.

 

[PredFan]

I came from poor.

I goofed off too much in school, just barely getting by. After graduating HS I worked in construction and partied my ass off. When the construction industry was destroyed by Jimmy Carter, I joined the Navy. The military taught me to be responsible for myself. I got out, I went to college, I achieved an 3.82 GPA, went to work full time after that and went to more schooling at the same time (no partying). I achieved my RRT, and my RN degree, and went to school more to be a perfusionist. I could go to more schooling, especially now that my kids are grown, but I'm happy with what I make annually and with my position in life. So I choose not to work to get richer.

Had I not goofed off in school, had I not waited and played around till I was 20 before I went into the service, i might have been a doctor and make more than I do now. It's my fault that I didn't. it isn't the fault of some corporation, it isn't the fault of the rich 1%, and none of them get the credit for the success that I do have.

There is no excuse for anyone in this country to be poor. if you are poor, one look in the mirror will show you who is to blame.

 

[The T]

I came from poor.

I goofed off too much in school, just barely getting by. After graduating HS I worked in construction and partied my ass off. When the construction industry was destroyed by Jimmy Carter, I joined the Navy. The military taught me to be responsible for myself. I got out, I went to college, I achieved an 3.82 GPA, went to work full time after that and went to more schooling at the same time (no partying). I achieved my RRT, and my RN degree, and went to school more to be a perfusionist. I could go to more schooling, especially now that my kids are grown, but I'm happy with what I make annually and with my position in life. So I choose not to work to get richer.

Had I not goofed off in school, had I not waited and played around till I was 20 before I went into the service, i might have been a doctor and make more than I do now. It's my fault that I didn't. it isn't the fault of some corporation, it isn't the fault of the rich 1%, and none of them get the credit for the success that I do have.

There is no excuse for anyone in this country to be poor. if you are poor, one look in the mirror will show you who is to blame.

Shame on YOU for being an individual...

Tongue now parked in cheek...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I came from poor.

I goofed off too much in school, just barely getting by. After graduating HS I worked in construction and partied my ass off. When the construction industry was destroyed by Jimmy Carter, I joined the Navy. The military taught me to be responsible for myself. I got out, I went to college, I achieved an 3.82 GPA, went to work full time after that and went to more schooling at the same time (no partying). I achieved my RRT, and my RN degree, and went to school more to be a perfusionist. I could go to more schooling, especially now that my kids are grown, but I'm happy with what I make annually and with my position in life. So I choose not to work to get richer.

Had I not goofed off in school, had I not waited and played around till I was 20 before I went into the service, i might have been a doctor and make more than I do now. It's my fault that I didn't. it isn't the fault of some corporation, it isn't the fault of the rich 1%, and none of them get the credit for the success that I do have.

There is no excuse for anyone in this country to be poor. if you are poor, one look in the mirror will show you who is to blame.

You are the quintessential American success story. Many on the left would have you believe your a victim.

I'm glad to have met you.

Kudos

 

[Inthemiddle]

A surtax on the rich to GIVE to the middle class is theft. Period.

Nobody is GIVING anything to the middle class. The bill would cut their taxes. Not give them money.

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.

I find this interesting. I take it you support the Democrats' efforts to eliminate tax subsidies and that you oppose Republican Presidential candidates who have proposed tax plans that would increase taxes on the lower and middle classes in order to pay for tax reductions for the wealthy.

 

[The T]

A surtax on the rich to GIVE to the middle class is theft. Period.

Nobody is GIVING anything to the middle class. The bill would cut their taxes. Not give them money.

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.

I find this interesting. I take it you support the Democrats' efforts to eliminate tax subsidies and that you oppose Republican Presidential candidates who have proposed tax plans that would increase taxes on the lower and middle classes in order to pay for tax reductions for the wealthy.

Why would ANYONE be given anything from government?

Much less thier liberty to change thier condition...since they already posess it and are afraid to speak up?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A surtax on the rich to GIVE to the middle class is theft. Period.

Nobody is GIVING anything to the middle class. The bill would cut their taxes. Not give them money.

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.

I find this interesting. I take it you support the Democrats' efforts to eliminate tax subsidies and that you oppose Republican Presidential candidates who have proposed tax plans that would increase taxes on the lower and middle classes in order to pay for tax reductions for the wealthy.

I can't break up your post like you do cause I'm on a phone so bare with me.

Taxing one more to enable another to keep more is a transfer of wealth. Period.

And I do support ending ALL subsidies. Corn, oil, wind, solar.... All of it.

 

[Dragon]

Yes. That is correct. We already have a system in place where anyone who has the ability to do their very best can in fact do that.

This is a meaningless statement. WITHIN ANY GIVEN SET OF RULES AND PARAMETERS, it is ALWAYS possible for "anyone who has the ability to do their very best." But that doesn't mean they will be equally rewarded for doing so under one set of rules as under another, and it doesn't mean that the bar of success is at a constant level of difficulty. The bar can be set so high that hardly anyone can gain a middle-class income, which is the direction we seem to be going, or it can be set low enough that anyone with a good work ethic and responsible habits can do so, which is where it was when I was a boy (although it was harder, admittedly, for non-whites and for women). Either of those will allow "anyone who has the ability to do their very best" but they are absolutely NOT equivalent sets of rules. Which is better? The low bar or the high bar?

Setting the bar to success low means that more people will enjoy a comfortable level of prosperity, but -- because more of the nation's wealth is spread around -- it means that the rich won't be as rich. Setting the bar high means that the rich will be phenomenally rich but -- because more of the nation's wealth is concentrated -- it means that fewer people will enjoy a comfortable level of prosperity.

We can have an economy that benefits the few or one that benefits the many. We can't have both at the same time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth.

It does mean something. The working class is also the consumer class, so when productivity soars while wages stagnate, resulting in increased concentration of wealth at the top, consumer demand slumps relative to goods on the market, and we get an economy like -- well, like this one.

And that's their fault. Should have worked harder

They did.

Should have been paid more for working harder. And that's NOT their fault.

Businesses pay appropriate wages.
Of course anyone who has never run a business or has been in a position where their decisions have a hand in finances knows that labor is the largest single expense of a business. Therefore, wage and salary control is priority one.
In the USA, indentured servitude does not exist. This means that a worker who is unsatisfied with their rate of pay has options. They may, negotiate a higher wage. They may improve their skill set as a means to move to a higher position within the company. They may attend classes to earn certifications which result in gaining more expertise which translates to greater earning potential. They may seek other employment.
Choices.
Your side believes business can magically increase wages with zero affect on the bottom line. Hence this nonsense in support of the so called living wage which is a pie in the sky idea concocted by liberals and unionists.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dude, it's percentages and that doesn't mean anything. Their actual earnings don't drop, just the percentage of the total wealth.

It does mean something. The working class is also the consumer class, so when productivity soars while wages stagnate, resulting in increased concentration of wealth at the top, consumer demand slumps relative to goods on the market, and we get an economy like -- well, like this one.

And that's their fault. Should have worked harder

They did.

Should have been paid more for working harder. And that's NOT their fault.

Tell ya what....I challenge you or anyone else on your side to use your own money to start and operate a business. Pay your people what you now on the outside looking in believe should be an appropriate wage. Feel free to ignore market wage. Use the mythical wage if you dare. Come back in a year and let us know who successful, or not, your business has become.
Otherwise, you can stow this " they should have been paid more" bullshit.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

What you are really saying is that YOU deserve their bonuses for doing nothing at all for this country except, of course, attempting to destroy it.

Immie

 

[pvsi.]

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

That is where many democrats are misguided...
FACT: "most of out tax money goes to the richest. historicaly it has been to the kings, and today to the special interests which control the government. for example, to pay the interest on the debt the government creates. some of that money however, also goes for people on welfare, who are being used as an excuse to steal from the working class. A government representing the people, will make sure that the people on welfare, do something for it - at least clean the streets or help the elderly"
That's from my web site that I'm not allowed to give a link to.