You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

[rdean]

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 welfare/warfare state has a voracious appetite.The parasites are like locusts.

,

So what do you recommend be done with these people? What is your "final solution"?

 

[Rinata]

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.

Destroying the rich??? How can anyone talk intelligently with you people??? Statements like that make it impossible.

 

[editec]

Libs are too stupid to work their own lungs.

Oliver Wendel Holmes, their hero, is the one who said "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

They will be far from being destroyed, cept their egos might suffer a blow or two.

leftwing tax policy depends on the idea that the rich are too stupid to avoid increased taxes by changing their behavior. Of course, if they were stupid, they wouldn't be rich.

Excellent point.

Most of what the rich have is invested in stocks or in bonds. That means increasing taxes on them will reduce the amount that goes to stock and bonds.

I think the argument can be made that much of the massive decrease in taxation on the very very wealthy over the last decade or so lead to inflation in the various investments markets where more and more money chased decreasing investment profits.

I mean we all seem to understand how when unions drive up wages that causes consumer inflation, but apparently few of us seem to understand that driving up the amount of investment capital available resulted in investment inflation (read BUBBLES).

In other words, increasing taxes the rich immediately reduces the level of employment. What other result could reducing investment have?

I'm not really an supportive of massive tax increases on the rich, now.

But sooner or later we will have to increase taxes on the superwealthy, if we hope to cope with the mounting national debt.

It is the merely affluent who are taking it on the neck because of our tax structure.

Essantially because our "progressive tax system" isn't really all that progressive that it puts small wealth in the same tax bracket with stupendously huge wealth.

It's those folks in the upper-middle class and lower-upper classes who are really getting screwed by this system.

 

[Antiderivative]

The rich get the government that they pay for. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a plutocracy where the corporatists, bankers, and MIC rule.

I love how rw kooks defend the decline our great country. They surely do hate America.

 

[MikeK]

Wake me up when someone proposes destroying the rich. Until then, keep sounding like morons when you claim asking for an additional 3% of each dollar over $250,000 is going to cause the wealthy to commit mass suicide.

Facts aren’t the point: it’s heresy to the right, it can’t be tolerated regardless how reasonable.

Over the years I've found that most of these torch-carriers for the rich don't have a pot to piss in. They look at their anemic paychecks and blame the meager net sum on taxes, which affords them a satisfying but imagined affinity with the rich.

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of the right-wing propagandists understand that and know how to make the most of it. What I find interesting is a significant number of the rich disagree with them, Warren Buffett being one prominent example.

 

[Sunshine]

​

you can't help the rich if you destroy the poor, either!

That's right. They need the poor to buy their stuff. Even if they are buying it with tax dollars. Are peoplenot aware that the taxes we pay for entitlements do not get stuffed in IRAs by the people getting the money. They have to spend every single dime to live. To not have the poor, would just bypass the middle man on the dollar's way up the food chain. Granted some of it goes for illegal drugs, but then those drug kingpins are 'rich' too and as such they are in the club. Did any of you folks ever research where Joe Kennedy got his wealth?

 

[Moving to USA]

I love how rw kooks defend the decline our great country. They surely do hate America.

I suppose that all depends on where you see the decline. I personally see it starting when the liberals decided they could take from the rich and give to the poor, when the liberals decided that it was best to tax business out of existence without regard for the job losses that would follow. When they decided that welfare should be an entitlement. when all personal responsibility was traded for some grand idea that the government would be a safety net when you fell.

Over the years I've found that most of these torch-carriers for the rich don't have a pot to piss in. They look at their anemic paychecks and blame the meager net sum on taxes, which affords them a satisfying but imagined affinity with the rich.
.

If I dont have a pot to piss in, it would be due to my lack of planning, What you dont understand is that I have no desire to steal from someone else as you would suggest being fair.
Who uses the most social services? those that dont pay into the system thats who. Public transportation, 9 or 10 crack babies taking up place in the schools until they are old enough to go to jail or collect welfare, the ones that cause the need for free health care, or free housing or reduced fees. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TAKING THIS COUNTRY DOWN. They are parasites on society.
If liberals felt so strongly about giving to the poor they would do so without it being a tax based program.
It is very obvious that the ones crying the loudest to tax everyone above their income level are those that most likely will never have to pay a tax in the first place.

 

[Sunshine]

I love how rw kooks defend the decline our great country. They surely do hate America.

I suppose that all depends on where you see the decline. I personally see it starting when the liberals decided they could take from the rich and give to the poor, when the liberals decided that it was best to tax business out of existence without regard for the job losses that would follow. When they decided that welfare should be an entitlement. when all personal responsibility was traded for some grand idea that the government would be a safety net when you fell.

Over the years I've found that most of these torch-carriers for the rich don't have a pot to piss in. They look at their anemic paychecks and blame the meager net sum on taxes, which affords them a satisfying but imagined affinity with the rich.
.

If I dont have a pot to piss in, it would be due to my lack of planning, What you dont understand is that I have no desire to steal from someone else as you would suggest being fair.
Who uses the most social services? those that dont pay into the system thats who. Public transportation, 9 or 10 crack babies taking up place in the schools until they are old enough to go to jail or collect welfare, the ones that cause the need for free health care, or free housing or reduced fees. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TAKING THIS COUNTRY DOWN. They are parasites on society.
If liberals felt so strongly about giving to the poor they would do so without it being a tax based program.
It is very obvious that the ones crying the loudest to tax everyone above their income level are those that most likely will never have to pay a tax in the first place.

And how would you rid this great country of crack babies and the poor?

 

[Big Fitz]

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!

Hence you get rid of loopholes and make it unprofitable to hire tax attorneys by dropping the tax burden. Problem solved right there. Next?

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.

What? You don't think that's part of socialism? Government payouts to special interest groups, be they industry or the poor is social engineering. Both should be ended. We haven't had Lassaiez Faire capitalism since McKinley was president. Even then the end of that was written with the reforms of the Arthur administration and the passage of the Sherman Anti Trust Act.

That said, Lassaiez Faire capitalism would never allow bailouts because the government would let the industries thrive or fail on their own. Socialist economic theory gets tangled in when government tries to 'help' an industry or company. That is why your association with LF Capitalism and bailouts is false. LF Capitalism was completely dead by 1930 thanks to the work of Hoover and FDR except for some small isolated pockets. The instant the ICC could be used to cover any type of commerce even if it was subsistence farming, the Free Market ceased to be.

But nobody hear is arguing for Lassaiez Faire. We are arguing against Socialist economic theory as put forth by Keynes and his ilk because it has been a proven failure world wide for 100 years almost. You do realize that the 1970's was some of the worst economic times we had in between now and the great depression, right? And Carter was following Keynsian economics to the letter. The same policies used by FDR for 14 long years and Hoover for 4 years before him. If not for Reagan reversing that, we'd have been hurting for at least another decade before any turn-around had been done, if Carter had been given a chance to do what he really wanted and micromanage the entire economy from the oval office.

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?

I have read about the Guilded Age and know quite a bit about it. In all actuality the Guilded age ended with J.J. Astor on the Titanic and the election of Wilson. Many great reforms came out of that period because of the destruction caused by the unbridled Industrial age. The Temperance movement had a great point but went to harm and many needed social reforms came out of it in the quality of life. Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers like Jakob Riis exposed the abuses and degradation of the industrial working class and tenement system. These are all good reforms. Even some of what Eugene V. Debs did was a good idea (except for the general strikes and pain he caused the average family through the railroad union agitation). The problem as I've often said is that they didn't stop when they should have. They kept on crusading like a parade that forgot where it was to end, and has gone on causing trouble ever since.

All that said, the chances of us reverting to the early industrial age abominations are slim to none.

Beck is not a defense. He is more often than not impeccably researched and well thought out when looking at history. His critics like you, won't believe of course, but when you look at his research honestly, it bears up the VAST majority of the time.

"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.

You need to listen to Beck's radio show sometime for yourself instead of quoting media mutters' lies. Obviously you've no idea what he talks about but get lots of half-assed false allegation. A little too concerned in the messenger than the message.

You make two wrong assumptions in these statements as well. First, that nobody pays attention to the rich if 'the majority is getting along'. The left and envy pimps always watch them like a hawk for any moment to exploit in which they can take a shot at their perceived enemies.

But you are right in one thing; A tax increase will not 'hurt' the Rich. In the short term it may not be the greatest for them but hurt? No no no. In the long term they'll hide their resources cut back and deny those who raised taxes access to their wealth like they would stopping a thief by moving their money out of the mattress to a bank vault. So, who do you hurt with the tax increases? The poor. Investment drops, work slows and jobs disappear. Tax revenues decrease legally, demand drops and charity dries up. This is what increasing taxes on the rich. If the bad tax policy goes on long enough or becomes worse, the rich pack up and leave denying ANY access to their wealth by putting themselves, smartly, out of range of the thieves who demand a right to their wealth.

You also make a third wrong assumption. I don't care that the rich live better than me, because their pleasant life does not change my circumstance one bit. I am not driven by jealousy and hate for others who have more or better than me, either through inheritance or achievement.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

Oh horseshit. Class envy and oppression does not define every economic action.

By this, your success is due to you because you fucked over someone else and are therefore inherently evil to boot. Just not AS evil as someone who is more successful.

Oh and please try that "debt isn't ruinous" line when you've maxed out your cards and try to get a mortgage or car loan, on the bank.

 

[Antiderivative]

I love how rw kooks defend the decline our great country. They surely do hate America.

I suppose that all depends on where you see the decline. I personally see it starting when the liberals decided they could take from the rich and give to the poor, when the liberals decided that it was best to tax business out of existence without regard for the job losses that would follow. When they decided that welfare should be an entitlement. when all personal responsibility was traded for some grand idea that the government would be a safety net when you fell.

Listen up dumbass,

1. I am not a modern day liberal.

2. I strongly believe in an equal playing which Republicans hate. They always fight for crony capitalism and political favoritism. Hence, why we live in a plutocracy.

Republicans have perverted the free market for their own gain and have gave it a bad name.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The rich get the government that they pay for. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a plutocracy where the corporatists, bankers, and MIC rule.

I love how rw kooks defend the decline our great country. They surely do hate America.

It doesn't matter...

You're seeing the last of the snot-nosed bankers go down in present times..

Those shit heads skipped economics 101, now they have no one to rip off because everyone is broke.

You're going to see a more traditional form of capitalism become our backbone... Our children will look at the notion of a credit card as something very odd.

 

[Antiderivative]

The rich get the government that they pay for. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a plutocracy where the corporatists, bankers, and MIC rule.

I love how rw kooks defend the decline our great country. They surely do hate America.

It doesn't matter...

You're seeing the last of the snot-nosed bankers go down in present times.

What are the fuck are you drinking? The bankers control the W.H. and just recieved a bonus for fucking up are economy. How are they going down?

You're going to see a more traditional form of capitalism become our backbone... Our children will look at the notion of a credit card as something very odd.

Crony capitalism is running rampant in the US and it ain't going away.

 

[Lasher]

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.

You cannot fight hate by supporting a hater.

You're assuming hate needs to be fought, but actually hate for hateful things is desirable and productive. Tolerance is the acceptance of evil.

 

[Lasher]

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 welfare/warfare state has a voracious appetite.The parasites are like locusts.

,

So what do you recommend be done with these people? What is your "final solution"?

Simple - stop feeding them.

 

[Lasher]

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?

Oh horseshit. Class envy and oppression does not define every economic action.

By this, your success is due to you because you fucked over someone else and are therefore inherently evil to boot. Just not AS evil as someone who is more successful.

Oh and please try that "debt isn't ruinous" line when you've maxed out your cards and try to get a mortgage or car loan, on the bank.

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

Oh horseshit. Class envy and oppression does not define every economic action.

By this, your success is due to you because you fucked over someone else and are therefore inherently evil to boot. Just not AS evil as someone who is more successful.

Oh and please try that "debt isn't ruinous" line when you've maxed out your cards and try to get a mortgage or car loan, on the bank.

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

That's the point of Ayn Rand generally. Too bad your sigline is so incredibly offensive. Then again, Nietsche was an example of human thinking at it's educated worst.

 

[Mr.Nick]

​

you can't help the rich if you destroy the poor, either!

That's right. They need the poor to buy their stuff. Even if they are buying it with tax dollars. Are peoplenot aware that the taxes we pay for entitlements do not get stuffed in IRAs by the people getting the money. They have to spend every single dime to live. To not have the poor, would just bypass the middle man on the dollar's way up the food chain. Granted some of it goes for illegal drugs, but then those drug kingpins are 'rich' too and as such they are in the club. Did any of you folks ever research where Joe Kennedy got his wealth?

Ur still trolling around with your baseless ass nonsense?

 

[sparky]

Good idea

Why don't you whip out your credit card next time your house is on fire?

In towns with private fire departments, fire protection is included in the cost of your homeowner's insurance.

Of course, the servile statist toady can't imagine any solution that doesn't involve government compulsion.

And how many towns have "private fire departments"? Does yours?

.

the assumption is beyond the limits of normal retartation here ....

 

[SwingVoter]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You need to understand that the pre-Reaganomics tax level didn't "destroy" the rich.

you need to understand how to read an income statement

instead of letting someone else do the thinking for you, you can actually read SEC filings yourself, if you did this you would see that Exxon Mobil has paid over $100 billion in taxes over the last four years on pre-tax profits of $260 billion, an effective rate over 40 percent