You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

[Mr.Nick]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

The "poor" or the democrats want retribution - not a healthy socioeconomic environment.

They're poor so in their fucked up minds everyone should be poor.

If they fail, no one should succeed..

Thats why they're socialists, they're not smart enough nor good enough to survive in a competition based market. They don't want to work hard - they believe working just enough to get by should be enough to be rewarded with a rich mans wage which is why they want retribution against those who have more than them.

They're fucking children - they're no more emotionally mature than 5-year-olds, and that 5-year-old side comes out when you press the right buttons.

When you press the right buttons they turn into mini-Mao's, then they become truthful and honest instead of their deceptive selves.

So of course these asshats only hurt themselves by attempting to punish the rich. Its the rich that give them their remedial jobs.

There is an old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you" well, the democrat motto is "bite the hand that feeds you."

These "poor" could be rich by now given the amount of energy they put into attacking the rich.... Its amazing...

These Marxist organizers could get college degrees what would make them rich given the amount of time and effort they put into their Marxist ideas.

But I suppose thats where intelligence becomes a factor in ones financial success. One man invests while the other man borrows, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which man will succeed. One will do without the nicer things in life for the first few years and the other will just dig his ass into debt for his entire life because he had to have the boat or the BMW before he could afford it.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the period between 1950 and 1980 was so prosperous what was the purpose of The Great Society?

To make it even better, which it did.

Then came Ronald Reagan, the messenger from General Electric.

And here we are.

You seem to be forgetting the trillions of dollars wasted on counter productive social programs, the bloated budget deficits, the broken families, increased gov't dependency, inflation of the 1970s, and loss of US competitiveness.
But other than that you've got a point.

 

[Nosmo King]

If kow towing to the rich actually creates jobs in America, we have yet to see evidence of that. If your taxes are being unjustifiably "confiscated" and "redistributed" among the poor, how does the argument that only 10% of Americans pay taxes hold water? If the rich are permitted to consolidate more and more of the nation's wealth, how can those few rich drive consumer spending, which really provides the engine for our economy?

When a nation has a vibrant, strong middle class, those consumers drive demand and exchange their wealth for goods and services. When a nation is selling out to the privileged in order to placate them hoping jobs will be created, either the jobs that come about are paying less (thereby diminishing the standard of living) or they are created in Asia or Latin America so the privileged can enjoy greater wealth at the expense of the majority of American working families.

And yet, there are plenty of struggling middle class americans willing to believe the voo doo of trickle down fiscal policy. I suppose if you don't include the consequences and dumb down the talking points enough, P.T Barnum gets proven right again and again: there's a sucker born every minute.

 

[boedicca]

The reason the middle class is struggling is because the economy is not growing and generating decent paying jobs. That's what happens when the government increases it's share of GDP consumption by 25% in less than three years.

 

[MikeK]

It was at 94%, it still is at 40%.

The reason FDR raised the maximum rate to 91% was to defeat the the ability of the tax lawyers in the service of the rich to do what you see in those examples shown in my original message, which was to cut the rate at least in half. So even with the 91% rate the average tax paid by the top brackets was around 45%.

Today, with a 35% rate, some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals are paying zero tax -- and some are actually getting subsidies from you and me!

Income redistribution is always socialism.

The most significant examples of income redistribution in our history have been the massive "bailouts" of the banking and finance industries.

What you should understand is both socialism and laissez faire capitalism, by themselves, are bad systems. Our system has been a capitalist economy which, when functioning as it did between 1950 and 1980, is held in check by the socialist regulations and policies that Reagan, Bush-1, Clinton and Bush-2 removed. The effect of those deregulations has been the rise of laissez faire capitalism, the effect of which we are looking at today.

Now, if we got rid of all social spending, we'd have no need for such high taxes, people would get to keep more of their money, and charitable organizations would flourish.

That is Glenn Beck propaganda. Read some of the history of the period in America known as the Gilded Age (which preceded and brought about the Great Depression) and you'll see how effective dependence on charity is. People were dying in the streets from hunger and sickness. Would you like to see that again in your country?

But hating the rich for being rich and not giving up money that if it was in your hands, you'd fight tooth and nail for as well, is well... moronic to be polite.

"Hating" the rich is more Glenn Beck propaganda and it is a truly dumb idea. There always have been rich people in America and no one pays any attention to them so long as the majority are getting along. But when some of the rich become the uber-rich while poverty increases exponentially at the lower income levels, wouldn't you say resentment is a natural consequence?

Just keep in mind that raising the upper tax level won't "hurt" the rich. It will just make them a little less rich. They will still have the best of everything and live better than the rest of us -- including you.

 

[MikeK]

Most people will always bite the hand that feeds them. It is really themselves they hate for taking it. It is a very unhealthful cycle.

The "hand" that feeds the poor, as well as the rich, in America consists of the bountiful natural and human resources of this Nation. Those who become rich in America by exploiting those resources owe a debt to the Nation for their success.

That debt occurs in the form of taxation, which is never ruinous. It simply makes the rich a bit less rich. They still live much better than the rest of us. So just who is it you are carrying a torch for?

 

[Contumacious]

If kow towing to the rich actually creates jobs in America, we have yet to see evidence of that.

You Vern, were Americans starving to death prior to 1935?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[asterism]

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich back then and it certainly won't "destroy" them now. It will simply make them a little less rich. Millionaires will still be millionaires.

Your idea that adjusting the progressive tax rate will severely compromise anyone is based on right wing propaganda. The following list shows the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, those between 1950 and 1980, when Reagan commenced the destruction of the middle class with a series of critical deregulations and tax reductions.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf



The following list will give you a general idea of why the tax rate on corporations is in serious need of adjustment.

1) Exxon Mobil – made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America — received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) General Electric — Over the past five years, GE made $26 billion in profits in the United States but still received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron — received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing — received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy — the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, has received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs — in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup — last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips — the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Carnival Cruise Lines — Over the past five years, it made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

If the period between 1950 and 1980 was so prosperous what was the purpose of The Great Society?

Since the Great Society didn't come into effect till the mid 1960's it's hard to credit it with prosperity before then.

I didn't. But why did we need such a massive social program if we were indeed so prosperous already?

The prosperity in the 1950's is due largely in part to the lack of foreign competition in Europe and Japan. They actually increased our prosperity because of the degree of exports we were sending over there. The excess demand for the good life coupled with war bonds being cashed in allowing for excess cash to come about in the middle class, often left to do without since the early 1930's went berzerk in the domestic market. This of course inspired a boom in the manufacturing industry converted over from WW2 and just hitting it's stride.

By the time it was starting to decline, Kennedy introduced his tax cuts and the economy shot off again and was then promptly used to fund the Great Society AND Vietnam War, dampening how high we could have really gone. The Great Society then managed to destroy minority (primarily Black) families it was supposed to help as well as make it easier to be poor and stay there, while the War in Vietnam drained away resources on the domino theory which ultimately failed and damaged severely US Military morale and nearly split the nation in two socially. Probably the worst decade in American history, save the one 100 years prior.

But MikeK's complaint that corporations need to be taxed more is silly at best. They do not need to be taxed more, we need to make ourselves a better investment. How do we do that? Simple, simplify the tax code, lower the taxes so they don't feel the need to hide their wealth because there are no better alternatives and eliminate loopholes. If you don't want someone to run from you, don't punish them all the time, and quit providing them with escape routes from their obligations. It's like a parent saying "eat your spinach or I'll beat you. But if you go over to your friends house, I can't beat you and wont stop you", the child then screaming no, and running next door to eat cookies with his friend. Not only did the child avoid the beating, they got cookies instead of spinach. That is how a globalist economy works when you make yourself a bad nation for investment.

You want that money back? Fine, make us a good investment. Of course, the logistics of doing that is to end the effort to become a socialist nation. Crazy that. Capitalists don't do well in socialist structures. Huh... and of course... socialists don't do well in capitalist structures either.

Of course, the crux of MikeK's complaint is still "Mommy Mommy he got a bigger slice of pie" ethics, ignoring how much of the pie 'Mommy' eats till he becomes 'Mommy'.

No argument there.

 

[boedicca]

I find the moonbat fixation on high tax rates to be highly amusing. They never match those up with inflation adjusted income break levels.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The reason the middle class is struggling is because the economy is not growing and generating decent paying jobs. That's what happens when the government increases it's share of GDP consumption by 25% in less than three years.

Obama did nothing more than pander to the labor unions and reward them handsomely with stimulus money...

The majority of the middle class is not unionized - we work non-union jobs and Obama has done absolutely nothing for us.

We're not his voting base. The middle class needed nothing from him, however he stole from us to reward his voting base.

Remember "I don't have to pay for gas anymore, rent or food."

The cream puff takes from the "middle class" and gives to the "poo" who believes now they have a free ride because they're (or a lot are)lazy fucks.

 

[asterism]

If the period between 1950 and 1980 was so prosperous what was the purpose of The Great Society?

To make it even better, which it did.

Then came Ronald Reagan, the messenger from General Electric.

And here we are.

So things were just fine in 1979?

You Sir, are obviously off the deep end.

 

[shintao]

Holding back any additional wealth will destroy the rich. They will throw a tantrum and not give us our jobs anymore

Oh, they are already doing that. Well then, they will out source and move to Siberia.

Point being, we need to free ourselves of corporate control.

And you free yourself of corporate control by creating a behemoth government. That makes sense.................................NOT.

.

Actually you would reduce the size of government drastically, end lobbying, reduce taxation, let the free market work at it's ultimate state, and free the people of corporate controls. You would know exactly what is costs for a pound of butter without any gov. subsidies attached to it.

 

[editec]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

No shit, sherlock.

Now who exactly is trying to "destroy the rich"?

 

[bripat9643]

The "hand" that feeds the poor, as well as the rich, in America consists of the bountiful natural and human resources of this Nation. Those who become rich in America by exploiting those resources owe a debt to the Nation for their success.

ROFL! The Soviet Union had far more bountiful natural and human resources than this country, so why did 20 million Kulaks starve in the 1930s? If you think nature produces bounty on it's own, you're hopelessly deluded. Nothing in this world is produced without human brain power and human effort.

Those who become rich in America by exploiting those resources owe a debt to the Nation for their success.

That's Marxist horseshit. It's an attempt to justify theft. The rich have received everything they have through voluntary exchange. The useless tics you want to bestow your stolen swag on have done nothing that entitles them to it.

That debt occurs in the form of taxation, which is never ruinous. It simply makes the rich a bit less rich. They still live much better than the rest of us. So just who is it you are carrying a torch for?

If its never "ruinous," then why do so many countries that follow the policies you endorse descend into poverty and mass starvation? The fact that some people have managed to remain rich only proves that you haven't succeeded in fully implementing your socialist utopia. Anywhere it has succeeded, ie, Cuba, Cambodia, Soviet Union, the result is disastrous.

 

[HUGGY]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

Destroy the rich by having them pony up at a time like this?

You are an idiot.. "The Rich" paid 90% tax after WWII. Why don't you tell everyone WHO was destroyed? My grandfathers both made a fortunes during that period. They were both strong staunch republicans... Not the crybaby variety we have today..

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

No shit, sherlock.

Now who exactly is trying to "destroy the rich"?

You and all the other useless tics on the ass of society who are always whining about how the rich need to "pay their fair share."

 

[rightwinger]

The reason the middle class is struggling is because the economy is not growing and generating decent paying jobs. That's what happens when the government increases it's share of GDP consumption by 25% in less than three years.

Obama did nothing more than pander to the labor unions and reward them handsomely with stimulus money...

The majority of the middle class is not unionized - we work non-union jobs and Obama has done absolutely nothing for us.

We're not his voting base. The middle class needed nothing from him, however he stole from us to reward his voting base.

Remember "I don't have to pay for gas anymore, rent or food."

The cream puff takes from the "middle class" and gives to the "poo" who believes now they have a free ride because they're (or a lot are)lazy fucks.

Wealthy Americans benefited the most from the stimulus.....they always do

 

[MikeK]

[...]Before I even consider tax increases, I want to see guaranteed trillions of dollars of REAL cuts, shutting down of agencies and decrease in the size of the overall budget to BELOW equilibrium before I consider a tax increase to 'pay off the debt'.

[...]

. . ."shutting down of agencies" . . . Those four words are a coded message that speaks volumes in right-wing brainwash propaganda. Those words represent the central purpose of your entire argument. They express the wish to ressurect the Gilded Age.

So let's get specific. Exactly which "agencies" do you champions of the uber-rich wish to shut down? And specifically how much money do you expect to save by the elimination of each?

 

[bripat9643]

. . ."shutting down of agencies" . . . Those four words are a coded message that speaks volumes in right-wing brainwash propaganda. Those words represent the central purpose of your entire argument. They express the wish to ressurect the Gilded Age.

So let's get specific. Exactly which "agencies" do you champions of the uber-rich wish to shut down? And specifically how much money do you expect to save by the elimination of each?

I'm not the "uber rich." I want to shut down all of them. However, we can start with the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. These are the three most useless agencies in the federal government.

Why you think anyone but a politician would be embarrassed about stating they want to eliminate gross black holes for money like these is beyond me. I think you should be embarrassed about wanting to continue funding them.

 

[bripat9643]

Wealthy Americans benefited the most from the stimulus.....they always do

The only ones who benefited are all useless tics on the ass of society.