Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You'll show me where I said that, right?
Or are you living in a different reality?
I'm sorry, I was under the assumption that you were implying that the rich automatically worked harder than the poor. That the poor and middle class only need to work harder to be rich. If that's not what you were implying I take back my statement.
The single mother working 3 jobs tends to make more than someone who works none.
Someone with a college degree tends to make more than someone who dropped out of high school.
An executive who works 70 hours a week tends to make more than an hourly employee working 35 hours a week.
Worship the rich? Not hardly, but I damn sure don't condemn them.
Fact is I consider myself rather wealthy, I co-own two business as well as work full time as a consultant for a large industrial construction company earning a 6 figure salary.
I don't condemn them either. Asking millionaires to pay taxes more in line with what they traditionally have before the Bush era tax cuts is hardly condemning them. Your worship of them is not flattering.
The rich paid more after the Bush tax cuts.
You never hear the left talking about spending cuts...well, except for Defense. But that's not out of any desire to save money.I want Obama to stop spending. I've said it multiple times. But I also want the very rich to stop getting the ridiculous breaks they are getting. They pay more then most because they own more the most. The top 1% own 35% of the wealth. The top 20% own 85% of the total wealth. That leaves 15% of the total wealth that is owned by 80% of the people. If that isn't a widening economic gap, I don't know what is.
Oh, for God's sake, let's cut to the chase here, Kids! The fact is...if we took ALL of the money that the top 10% make it wouldn't come close to paying for the unfunded entitlements that we are on the hook for. Let me repeat that a little louder for you progressives. IF WE TOOK ALL OF THE MONEY THAT THE TOP 10% MAKE IT WOULDN'T PAY THE TAB FOR ALL THE UNFUNDED ENTITLEMENTS WE NOW HAVE ON THE BOOKS!!! This talk about getting the rich to "pay their share"? It's all bullshit. It's a diversion. It's a sleight of hand trick whose sole purpose is to get you to not pay attention to where the real problem is.
Are you people on the Left really this obtuse? Or have you decided that if you ignore the problem long enough it will magically go away?
Point me to where anyone suggested that tax increases alone are the solution to our problems. Nice job at inventing an argument that no one has made.
Why do you worship the rich? Are you afraid they will take your job away?
Demand drives job creation, not taxes. If some entity wanted to buy 50,000 cubic yards of concrete from you to pave a highway, you'd better have the work force ready to produce 50,000 cubic yards of concrete. Then, your workers will spend their pay at grocers, hardware stores, clothing shops, ice cream parlors and on and on. Those grocers, hardware stores and ice cream parlors will need workers to fill those demands. And thus the economy grows.Doesn't consumer spending drive the economy? Isn't economic activity defined as the exchange of goods and services for capital? Aren't that loathed bottom 50% much more capable of participating in spending than that coddled top 55 by shear strength of numbers alone?
And the Liberals are idiots. Not when these bon mots of common sense are applied!
I was unaware the bottom 50 percent were loathed.
The fact is without jobs, the ecomomic growth is stunted.
You cannot spend your way out of this mess, you first have to make the current tax rates permanent, take capital gains tax to zero, reduce corporate taxes, close corporate loopholes, cut federal spending, reform medicare/medicaid and social security.
I'm assuming you think along the lines of Nancy Pelosi when she said that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.
Cutting spending so the poorest in society suffer to balance the special tax breaks only the richest enjoy is not only cruel but a failed policy. The richest don't spend the way the majority of consumers can spend. The richest shelter in ways the poorest cannot afford to.
The federal government spends $23 billion annually on special interest pork projects such as grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or funds to combat teenage "goth" culture in Blue Springs, Missouri.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services awarded the University of California at Santa Cruz $615,000 federal funds to digitize Grateful Dead photographs, tickets, backstage passes, flyers, shirts, and other memorabilia.
The city of Las Vegas has received a $5.2 million federal grant to build the Neon Boneyard Park and Museum, including $1.8 million in 2010. For over the last decade, Museum supporters have gathered and displayed over 150 old Las Vegas neon signs, such as the Golden Nugget and Silver Slipper casinos.
Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia.
Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.
Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.
Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
IMHO.
Go getters get to the top of any society, be it tribal, communistic or capitalistic.
This notion people are equal is:
The bottom line is unless your served and did your Duty
I dont owe you chit.
I'm sorry, I was under the assumption that you were implying that the rich automatically worked harder than the poor. That the poor and middle class only need to work harder to be rich. If that's not what you were implying I take back my statement.
The single mother working 3 jobs tends to make more than someone who works none.
Someone with a college degree tends to make more than someone who dropped out of high school.
An executive who works 70 hours a week tends to make more than an hourly employee working 35 hours a week.
My, what a simplistic way of looking at things. Making more does not equal how hard someone works. I know you equate money to productivity but like I said earlier, thats only true in your fantasy world.
The top 10% earns 45% of all income, but they only pay 21.5% of all federal taxes. Those are the facts. The super wealthy are undertaxed. And you idiot conservatives want to cut their taxes even more.
I don't condemn them either. Asking millionaires to pay taxes more in line with what they traditionally have before the Bush era tax cuts is hardly condemning them. Your worship of them is not flattering.
The rich paid more after the Bush tax cuts.
Nice chart that looks at income taxes only. LOL. Really?
What happens after the round over errors in the anecdotal examples you gave finally hit the wall and the "real" spending cuts happen? HUD (public housing and the Section Eight Rental assistance Program), Department of Agriculture Food Stamps, Women and Infant Children aid, disability assistance. These have big fat targets on them and they represent substantial areas of spending, not a few million for neon sign preservation.Demand drives job creation, not taxes. If some entity wanted to buy 50,000 cubic yards of concrete from you to pave a highway, you'd better have the work force ready to produce 50,000 cubic yards of concrete. Then, your workers will spend their pay at grocers, hardware stores, clothing shops, ice cream parlors and on and on. Those grocers, hardware stores and ice cream parlors will need workers to fill those demands. And thus the economy grows.I was unaware the bottom 50 percent were loathed.
The fact is without jobs, the ecomomic growth is stunted.
You cannot spend your way out of this mess, you first have to make the current tax rates permanent, take capital gains tax to zero, reduce corporate taxes, close corporate loopholes, cut federal spending, reform medicare/medicaid and social security.
I'm assuming you think along the lines of Nancy Pelosi when she said that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy.
Cutting spending so the poorest in society suffer to balance the special tax breaks only the richest enjoy is not only cruel but a failed policy. The richest don't spend the way the majority of consumers can spend. The richest shelter in ways the poorest cannot afford to.
You equate cutting spending as harming the poor.
How would ending that hurt the poor?
The poor couldn't live without it huh?
Oh yes, this helps the poor folks.
Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia.
For the poor I'm sure.
Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.
Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.
Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
But it's for the poor people!
The contemporary concept of "fair share" taxation is a deceptively subjective notion which has been floated by the super-rich and appeals to the Libertarian mentality, which consists of some good ideas but ultimately flies off the deep end and is detached from socialized reality.So forcing the rich to pay MORE than their fair is people working together?
The Libertarians would be happy with a ten percent "flat tax," an arrangement which means a breadwinner who earns a million dollars would pay a $100,000 income tax, leaving a luxurious $900,000, while the one who earns $15,000 would pay $1,500, thus forcing him below the poverty line. The inevitable consequence of that formula would be the kind of neo-aristocracy which presently is taking form in America and must be curtailed to ensure the survival of our democracy.
Thus the progressive tax rate which enabled the growth of the middle class and facilitated the most prosperous period in our history. The formula of the progressive tax rate is based not only on a percentage of what one earns but how much one can reasonably afford to pay.
That's one way of looking at it.Somehow those numbers don't reflect society "working together" but more like the bottom half feeding off the top half.
But a more substantive analysis of the situation is this: The United States has afforded some of its more resourceful citizens an opportunity to accumulate an exceptional amount of wealth by exploiting the Nation's material, political and human resources. So the progressive tax rate is actually a way of the United States recovering a fair percentage of that wealth for its operating expenses.
"Fair" in this usage does not and should not mean uniform. It means practical, realistic, patriotic and necessary.
They operate outside our tax code because they have managed to have the regulations that once prevented such legal manipulation altered or eliminated. This kind of financial maneuvering is in fact damaging to the Nation's economy and is manifestly disloyal!And you idiot liberals wants the top to pay even more. And you wonder why they operate overseas outside our tax code.
Or do you disagree?
Sorry if I shot your silly leftist meme out of the saddle.I don't condemn them either. Asking millionaires to pay taxes more in line with what they traditionally have before the Bush era tax cuts is hardly condemning them. Your worship of them is not flattering.
The rich paid more after the Bush tax cuts.
Nice chart that looks at income taxes only. LOL. Really?
The single mother working 3 jobs tends to make more than someone who works none.
Someone with a college degree tends to make more than someone who dropped out of high school.
An executive who works 70 hours a week tends to make more than an hourly employee working 35 hours a week.
My, what a simplistic way of looking at things. Making more does not equal how hard someone works. I know you equate money to productivity but like I said earlier, thats only true in your fantasy world.
Making more does not equal how hard someone works.
No, but working harder helps. Working harder in school and working harder after graduation.
I know you equate money to productivity
You're right, less productive people should be paid more.
And more productive people should be paid less.
Sorry if I shot your silly leftist meme out of the saddle.
Nice chart that looks at income taxes only. LOL. Really?
What happens after the round over errors in the anecdotal examples you gave finally hit the wall and the "real" spending cuts happen? HUD (public housing and the Section Eight Rental assistance Program), Department of Agriculture Food Stamps, Women and Infant Children aid, disability assistance. These have big fat targets on them and they represent substantial areas of spending, not a few million for neon sign preservation.Demand drives job creation, not taxes. If some entity wanted to buy 50,000 cubic yards of concrete from you to pave a highway, you'd better have the work force ready to produce 50,000 cubic yards of concrete. Then, your workers will spend their pay at grocers, hardware stores, clothing shops, ice cream parlors and on and on. Those grocers, hardware stores and ice cream parlors will need workers to fill those demands. And thus the economy grows.
Cutting spending so the poorest in society suffer to balance the special tax breaks only the richest enjoy is not only cruel but a failed policy. The richest don't spend the way the majority of consumers can spend. The richest shelter in ways the poorest cannot afford to.
You equate cutting spending as harming the poor.
How would ending that hurt the poor?
The poor couldn't live without it huh?
Oh yes, this helps the poor folks.
For the poor I'm sure.
Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.
Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.
Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
But it's for the poor people!
And that's when the actual poor start paying for the actual tax cuts given to the actual richest among us.
My, what a simplistic way of looking at things. Making more does not equal how hard someone works. I know you equate money to productivity but like I said earlier, thats only true in your fantasy world.
Making more does not equal how hard someone works.
No, but working harder helps. Working harder in school and working harder after graduation.
I know you equate money to productivity
You're right, less productive people should be paid more.
And more productive people should be paid less.
Again, making more money does not mean you work harder. I was right about you with my original statement. I guess the cast of Jersey Shore work harder than you. I guess you can learn or thing or two about how to work harder from Albert Haynseworth.
arent we all, but you admit you dont play at Warrens level so most likely you dont follow the same social circles. therefore Warren might have a better grasp on the situation.
No I didn't admit any such thing.
Warren talks a good game, but he doesn't practice what he preaches. He can give the government as much money he wishes, but does he? No.
Warren keeps his taxes low by donating appreciated Berkshire Hathaway stock (which costs him pennies on the dollar) to charity, and receives a tax deduction at the appreciated price without having to pay a capital gains tax on the appreciation. The money then sits in his own charitable organization. He’s saving income taxes with the ordinary deduction so it’s essentially a tax shelter. He builds up net worth and doesn’t have to sell stock while deferring capital gains. When he does take a capital gain, it’s at a 15% rate, and he lives in a low-tax state.
So he plays the system. So what. Plenty of people do that, and he is saying you can tax the rich at a higher % it they wont feel it.
I know you didnt admit it, i was playing on words..
Why would anyone donate money to the government.Thats not how it works.
arent we all, but you admit you dont play at Warrens level so most likely you dont follow the same social circles. therefore Warren might have a better grasp on the situation.
No I didn't admit any such thing.
Warren talks a good game, but he doesn't practice what he preaches. He can give the government as much money he wishes, but does he? No.
Warren keeps his taxes low by donating appreciated Berkshire Hathaway stock (which costs him pennies on the dollar) to charity, and receives a tax deduction at the appreciated price without having to pay a capital gains tax on the appreciation. The money then sits in his own charitable organization. Hes saving income taxes with the ordinary deduction so its essentially a tax shelter. He builds up net worth and doesnt have to sell stock while deferring capital gains. When he does take a capital gain, its at a 15% rate, and he lives in a low-tax state.
So he plays the system. So what. Plenty of people do that, and he is saying you can tax the rich at a higher % it they wont feel it.
I know you didnt admit it, i was playing on words..
Why would anyone donate money to the government.Thats not how it works.
Anecdotal in that those examples are prime examples of federal waste. Anecdotal in that those examples, even if all totaled up, would not come close to the levels of cuts proposed. Examples such as these are used the way a matador uses a red cape. They are intended to distract you from the REAL cuts in social services which separates this nation from truly impoverished nations.What happens after the round over errors in the anecdotal examples you gave finally hit the wall and the "real" spending cuts happen? HUD (public housing and the Section Eight Rental assistance Program), Department of Agriculture Food Stamps, Women and Infant Children aid, disability assistance. These have big fat targets on them and they represent substantial areas of spending, not a few million for neon sign preservation.You equate cutting spending as harming the poor.
How would ending that hurt the poor?
The poor couldn't live without it huh?
Oh yes, this helps the poor folks.
For the poor I'm sure.
But it's for the poor people!
And that's when the actual poor start paying for the actual tax cuts given to the actual richest among us.
These examples are not anecdotal, if you would click on the link you will find they are actual FACTS. I know you liberals have a hard time with facts, but there they are.
Yes, lets continue the trend below: After Plutocracy is great for our economy. True, it kills the working class the opportunity to take part in our consumer driven economy and true, two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending, but that's alright, we'll survive.
