The idea that the rich owe the government is backwards

[Truthmatters]

what do you say is the problem?

 

[Jarhead]

what do you say is the problem?

Tenure.

Plain and simple.

 

[CentristFiasco]

This idea that the rich are only rich because of the government is dumb. I know that the liberals want to say that the manufacturer owes the government for the police, firefighters, roads, education of their employees, etc….

But this is totally backwards. Without the wealthy in this country we would have no roads. We would have no police, firefighters, or schools. The fact is Liberal live in a box. Look at Detroit the place is a ghost town. Look at California, Illinois, New York, and other heavy liberal states. They are suffering greatly because most of their business creators have left.

Many of the wealthy have left. Liberals need to wake up and realize we need the wealthy more than the wealthy needs America. There was a time when America was head and feet above the rest of the world but that just is not the case anymore. If we continue to attack the rich, the rich will up and leave. We are competing for the rich to want to be here.

Look we could tax the rich in a country full of the wealthy at 5% and still get more money than we would taxing a nation full of the poor at 100%. Plus the rich are the ones that create the middle class. Without the rich there is no middle class. Which is of course is the reason that when progressives get into power the rich start to leave and the middle class starts to dwindle.

And guess what liberals you can not hire government workers if you have no money coming in through taxes. So believe what you want but in the end reality will always win. How difficult are these facts to understand????

Karl Marx got what he wanted...

 

[miami_thomas]

Then lets focus on the problem of "crony capitalism" along with getting more bang for our buck from Congress.

All the plans being proposed by the conservative candidates minus Mitt Romney are flat tax or a mix of flat and fair tax with no deductions.

 

[miami_thomas]

you live in a fantasy land.

Do you know what the reports on our infrastructure say?


The taxes on the top bracket are lower than they have been for decades.

WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS ????????

That is because the rich are leaving. If there are fewer in the top then there will be lower taxes. Do you realize that if you make 343,000 dollars a year you are the top 1%. People say the top 1% are the ones that need to pay more taxes. Many of the lower top 1% have left especially the business creator. Slowly but surely the rich are just becoming the liberal types like actors and lawyers. They don't create jobs.

 

[miami_thomas]

Poor infrastructure fails America, civil engineers report - CNN

That is great but we used to be able to use taxes to pay for these things. But slowly and surely we have taken up all our taxes with wellfare and government workers. We need to cut things in order to build infrastructure. Not raise taxes.

 

[miami_thomas]

the taxes are lowwer than they have been in decades.

You guys always claim it will create jobs.

WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS TO PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT?????>?


you all support historically failed ideas

Taxes are not down revenue is down. There is a difference figure it out.

 

[miami_thomas]

The lower taxes are YOUR idea huh?

Now you want them even lower on the one pecent.

The lower taxes have NOT produced what your right wing claims have said they would.


How long will you claim they will?



When do you admitt they have failed to produce what you claim they will?

Taxes have not been down since the 20s. What are talking about they are down. Currently our tax on business is the highest among developed nations.

 

[Dragon]

That is because the rich are leaving.

You have no evidence to support this statement.

On the other hand, I can say that the jobs aren't appearing because there is insufficient consumer demand to justify them, and that it's the amount of money in the pockets of ordinary people, rather than the amount of capital accumulated, which determines whether jobs will be created.

I can prove this, by reference to consumer spending statistics and economic history and theory, where you are simply blowing smoke.

 

[miami_thomas]

By giving them money to fail us completely like the bail out.

That is what your party did

Excuse me but the Republicans reluctantly bailed out the Banks. Remember it was Bush that got slammed for not saving lehmen brothers. It was the Democrats that scolded him for not bailing them out. Then he bailed them out. Obama is the one that added bailouts for insurance and the auto industry.

 

[Dragon]

Excuse me but the Republicans reluctantly bailed out the Banks. Remember it was Bush that got slammed for not saving lehmen brothers. It was the Democrats that scolded him for not bailing them out. Then he bailed them out.

Setting aside the fact that you are, as usual, confused about the details, let's stipulate that this is not a partisan matter and terms like "Democrat" and "Republican" are irrelevant. The claim is not that one party is better than another, but rather that one approach to the economy is better than another, specifically, that a demand-side approach has proven itself successful while a supply-side approach has proven itself an utter failure.

Since both Democrats and Republicans have pursued a supply-side approach since the 1980s, that is not a partisan statement.

 

[miami_thomas]

Hypothesis contrary to fact.

The government is not attacking the rich. We are discussing the possibility that it might be persuaded to, not the actuality of its doing so.

The US has the highest taxes on the rich in the developed world. I would call that attacked. With health care reform, financial reform, attacks on oil, etc... I would say that have been under attack for some time.

 

[miami_thomas]

Is that how A company operates?


If they have a sector in which there is customers and it is underperforming they DONT cut funds to it do they?

They increase expenditure to accomodate the market so they can engauge the underlying customer base.

Then they make money by doing so.

The problem with schools is the students not the Teachers. I don't care if there was one teacher teaching on stones with chiseling. The students are the ones that have to learn. You can not teach students that don't want to learn and I can tell you students these days don't want to learn. I can also tell you many parents don't care if the kid is learning as long as they don't have to worry about it.

 

[miami_thomas]

We all owe a debt for civilization

REally? Then we only really need 1% of the population? Wow! who knew?

The wealthy won't leave until they have with the help of the government they own, extracted every cent out of this economy.

Their MONEY however, will find other places to settle while this bankrupting of the national economy is happening.

Sure we all owe a debt for civilization but why do the rich owe a higher percentage than the rest of us. Plus the government is not civilization and it doesn't exactly make good decisions with the money.

I'm stating that we need the money from the 1% in order to maintain our lifestyle. If they leave 70% of our tax revenue leaves with them. I would say that would be pretty catastrophic of course the liberals would like that because then the government can run everything. But instead of there being some poor and some middle class then there will be the rich (government) and the poor (citizens/serfdom)

So the us raising their taxes even more will help convince them to stay or to try to get as much of their money as possible before they can escape?

 

[miami_thomas]

You have no evidence to support this statement.

On the other hand, I can say that the jobs aren't appearing because there is insufficient consumer demand to justify them, and that it's the amount of money in the pockets of ordinary people, rather than the amount of capital accumulated, which determines whether jobs will be created.

I can prove this, by reference to consumer spending statistics and economic history and theory, where you are simply blowing smoke.

There have been rich leaving look it up. There have been rich leaving since 2008. In fact there was a survey done and 48% said that if Obama got re-elected they would leave.

For people to purchase stuff business has to expand. They are not going to do anything when they are uncertain about the future especially with threats coming from health care and taxes.

 

[miami_thomas]

Excuse me but the Republicans reluctantly bailed out the Banks. Remember it was Bush that got slammed for not saving lehmen brothers. It was the Democrats that scolded him for not bailing them out. Then he bailed them out.

Setting aside the fact that you are, as usual, confused about the details, let's stipulate that this is not a partisan matter and terms like "Democrat" and "Republican" are irrelevant. The claim is not that one party is better than another, but rather that one approach to the economy is better than another, specifically, that a demand-side approach has proven itself successful while a supply-side approach has proven itself an utter failure.

Since both Democrats and Republicans have pursued a supply-side approach since the 1980s, that is not a partisan statement.

That is of course you are counting the fact that the government has been hands on all over the place and the houses for everyone crap is what ultimately caused this collapse. If the government would get out of the way then we might be able to get this thing fixed. But the answer has always been more and more government to fix everything. With each fix slowly choking the private sector. And that has been Republicans and Democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have no evidence to support this statement.

On the other hand, I can say that the jobs aren't appearing because there is insufficient consumer demand to justify them, and that it's the amount of money in the pockets of ordinary people, rather than the amount of capital accumulated, which determines whether jobs will be created.

I can prove this, by reference to consumer spending statistics and economic history and theory, where you are simply blowing smoke.

There have been rich leaving look it up. There have been rich leaving since 2008. In fact there was a survey done and 48% said that if Obama got re-elected they would leave.

For people to purchase stuff business has to expand. They are not going to do anything when they are uncertain about the future especially with threats coming from health care and taxes.

If this country's recent and current economic weakness is Obama's fault,

how do you explain similar and some cases worse economic woes overseas? Are those his fault too?

 

[spectrumc01]

You have no evidence to support this statement.

On the other hand, I can say that the jobs aren't appearing because there is insufficient consumer demand to justify them, and that it's the amount of money in the pockets of ordinary people, rather than the amount of capital accumulated, which determines whether jobs will be created.

I can prove this, by reference to consumer spending statistics and economic history and theory, where you are simply blowing smoke.

There have been rich leaving look it up. There have been rich leaving since 2008. In fact there was a survey done and 48% said that if Obama got re-elected they would leave.

For people to purchase stuff business has to expand. They are not going to do anything when they are uncertain about the future especially with threats coming from health care and taxes.

Leave to where? Europe is full of socialists who love to redistribute wealth...remember? so surely they wouldn't go there. Asia? perhaps...maybe not most Asian countries are either communistic or Islamic. There is India.

We hear about how horrible the rest of the world is and that we should not do things the way the rest of the world does them. Now you tell me they are leaving the US. I thought the US was the number one country in the world? Sorry but I got to call Bull shit on that one.

 

[8537]

I think this should be the apex of the Republican platform in 2012: The Problem with this country is that the government owes the rich people!

That's a sure winner.

 

[miami_thomas]

If this country's recent and current economic weakness is Obama's fault,

how do you explain similar and some cases worse economic woes overseas? Are those his fault too?

Yes some. Just like Europe affects us we have affected Europe. Plus the printing of dollars as decreased the dollars value causing food inflation which has hurt outside the US even more than inside the US.