How does envy and hate towards "rich" people..

[NYcarbineer]

No idea contrary to what some on the left think not everyone who's politics lean right is a evangelical who can quote the bible chapter verse.

So the people that insist the U.S. is a Christian nation are no more than a few extremist nutcases?

No.

So yes there is a significant contingent of Americans who insist we are a Christian nation,

but there is also a signficant contingent among them who simply pick and choose what they think Christian means,

even if their choice blatantly contradicts the written word of their supposed instruction.

 

[cutter]

Helping to solve your own problems.....I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys..

Maybe it seems selective because.....this might be a shocker to you......that democrats don't in fact hate rich people. It's a nice strawman that educated republicans have convinced their uneducated base to parrot (*ahem, someone has a fitting Avatar). But if Democrats are supposed to "hate" rich people but yet you can name rich people they don't seem to "hate", then maybe your hypothesis is off. Maybe it's the policies that favor rich people that liberals don't like.

Does Warren Buffet hate himself? Of course not, but he speaks out constantly about the policies that favor rich people such as himself. No one hates anyone. Turn off your tv/radio and use your brain for once.

If Buffet Is so happy with himself and his station in life Why won't he pay the back taxes his company owes? He keeps saying the rich don't pay enough taxes and he refuses to pay his own.

 

[FloridaGirl]

Helping to solve your own problems.....I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys..

Maybe it seems selective because.....this might be a shocker to you......that democrats don't in fact hate rich people. It's a nice strawman that educated republicans have convinced their uneducated base to parrot (*ahem, someone has a fitting Avatar). But if Democrats are supposed to "hate" rich people but yet you can name rich people they don't seem to "hate", then maybe your hypothesis is off. Maybe it's the policies that favor rich people that liberals don't like.

Does Warren Buffet hate himself? Of course not, but he speaks out constantly about the policies that favor rich people such as himself. No one hates anyone. Turn off your tv/radio and use your brain for once.

If Buffet Is so happy with himself and his station in life Why won't he pay the back taxes his company owes? He keeps saying the rich don't pay enough taxes and he refuses to pay his own.

If he wants to pay more taxes, he is free to do so.......let him and his buddies pay all they want and leave the rest of us alone, stop telling us what to do.......Maybe you will get a better result when not telling people what to do.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lie much, Commie?

Name the conservative policies that contradict what I said.

.

You made the claim, not us. Prove your claim.

Be specific.

You suck at argument.

Examples:

Romney and Ryan both support economic plans that would give huge tax cuts to upper income Americans and on the other hand reduce funding for programs for lower income Americans such as Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

Those plans accomplish exactly what I pointed out in my original post, that conservative policy serves to move our produced wealth towards the richer and away from the poorer. That is not even disputable.

So rather than try to dispute it, you should tackle the question in my original post:

How does that make America a better place?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh well, looks like PC and Sniper weren't as keen to debate the subject in detail as they let on.

 

[SniperFire]

Oh well, looks like PC and Sniper weren't as keen to debate the subject in detail as they let on.

This was your claim:

'"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."

Which is absurd and you cannot back up. You look like a fool once again.

Thanks for playin!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The nation produces a finite amount of wealth in any given year.

AS GENERAL RULES...

Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few.

Liberals believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is less concentrated in the hands of a few,
and instead more widely distributed across a wider portion of the population.


The question then becomes,

in which case IS the nation better off?

"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."


The effluvia of a limited and fevered imagination.

Amazing how consistent you are....


I'd suggest that you converse with a conservative....but I can't imagine any wasting their time in said endeavor.

I'll converse with you then.

Name the conservative policies that contradict what I said.

Be specific.

"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."

Of course, the statement is that of a grade-school drop-out.

Conservative don't believe in 'distributing' wealth, and certainly don't imagine some Utopian government in which there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services to ascertain the ethereal 'equality.' The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state....

Your simian gabble having been dispensed with, here is a primer that would aid anyone with average intelligence.

We both know that means it is useless in this case.....

1) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century. This alone destroys what passes for insight in your post.


2) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution! Therefore there is no limitation on who attains wealth and success. Your statement is of the straw man variety.

3) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

4) The most dispostive argument in favor of conservatives is a review of liberal behavior in every one of your icons, from FDR on down...and I do mean down. By limiting liberty, liberals limit the path to success, to wealth. FDR altered the American view of equality from equality of opportunity, to the impossible equality of outcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh well, looks like PC and Sniper weren't as keen to debate the subject in detail as they let on.

Wellllll, excuuuuuuuussssssseeeee me.....


I went to lunch with my sister....is that alright with you???


Your embarrassment is in the post #127.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How does envy and hate towards "rich" people..

Helping to solve your own problems....

It doesn’t. And no one ever said it did. It a myth you and others on the right contrived for partisan reasons.

I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......

There’s no reason to be puzzled, it’s not ‘dislike,’ but disagreement, as Romney is wrong on the issues, having nothing to do with his ‘wealth.’

So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys.

What you’ve demonstrated is you don’t understand it correctly.

 

[initforme]

"Awwww....
...still upset that "Das Kapital" wasn't autographed to you?"

Oh come on now. I INVITE you to degrade me more. Come on, I am asking for you to rip me more. Please. C'mon, you can do better than that. C'mon, please? PLEEEEZ I beg of you. Lets start with anti american. C'mon. Do it. It will make both of us feel better. After 74 years on this earth it feels good to say it.

 

[JoeB131]

Helping to solve your own problems.....I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys..

It's not the wealth I have the issue with, it's the mentality of greed that goes along with it.

Both Romney and Kennedy were indeed rich.

The Kennedy's used their wealth to dedicate their lives to public service. Two of them paid for that service with their very lives.

Romney used his wealth to go into companies, loot them for the assets and in some cases, do real harm to communities that depended on those companies for jobs.

 

[ilia25]

Some folks are hard to fool...

....then, there's you..



1. The charge is that there has been very little change in the average real income of American households over a period of decades. And there is proof of that: income adjusted for inflation rose by only 6% from 1969 to 1999…stagnation? There it is: simple proof for the simple mind… never mind.

a. You see, it is also true that the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!! http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

b. The explanation? Changes in the average number of persons per household was declining over that period! It also varies with racial and ethnic groups and with income brackets.

Yes, you've got me here! The average number of persons in a household decreased in the past 30 years from 2.8 to 2.5. Wow, it sure would explain why the incomes of the top 1% grew 40 times faster than in the median.

Or may be not?




So where can we see that individual income data?




The keyword here is of course "partially".



I have no problem with the rich earning more than the poor. The issue is that inequality is rising over time -- and as that trend continues, what will become of this country?

c. Further, the educational backgrounds and skills of the two quintiles are far from comparable.

No, they not -- and that is the reason for taxing the rich more. We cannot all be CEO, someone has to clean the toilets too. And CEO should take home much more than a janitor so talented people have the incentives to advance their careers. But when CEO is bringing home 500 times more than a plumber, that is just ridiculous.

Tell me a single reason why setting 70% marginal tax rate for the rich is NOT the best way to pay for Medicare or social security, or defense?

1. "The issue is that inequality...."

No it isn't.


What someone else earns is none of your darn business.

Yes it is, as long as we have income taxes.

2. "So where can we see that individual income data?"
Ask 'em for their income tax forms.
When do you post yours?

When I find it -- till then I have to rely on household census data, that shows inequality rising rapidly in the past 30 years.

3. "The issue is that inequality...."
Totally false and ignorant.
The more you work, the more you make.

That is a total BS, and you know it. A janitor can work himself do death 24/7, and he still will be making hundreds times less than a CEO. The kind of services you offer matters.

a. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more.

And what will happen if a few skilled workers begin to earn 99.9999% of nations income -- because the free market values their services that much? I'm not saying this will ever happen, but we are going that way in the past 30 years.

Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings

The definition of productivity is the value the market puts on one's services. If your services are in demand, then your productivity is high and you earn a lot of money -- but it does not mean you are working harder than everyone else. It means you were lucky to be born with that particular talent.

In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

It does not explain why the incomes of the top 1% were growing 40 times faster than in the middle.

The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity.

That is the problem -- we should reward the hard work, not so much the talent one had born with, or his/her luck. Simply because we can't all become CEOs! Even if we all can master the skills -- someone has to vacuum floors.

4. But...if you want to fight 'inequality,' here's some:
The top 1% earn 17% of the money.... but pay 38% of the taxes.....
How come you're not incensed over that????

Because it is not enough -- top earners have to pay about 70% in income taxes, so low income earners can pay less. Because we only need enough inequality to keep people motivated.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Helping to solve your own problems.....I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys..

Who is hating on the rich? It's okay to be rich but it is not okay to get a free ride from taxpayers.

 

[Rozman]

Helping to solve your own problems.....I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys..

How does wanting to end the Bush Tax cuts and treat the capital gains as income equal envy and hate?

Because the impression that is being given and with intent by the Obama handlers is that
there is a finite amount of money out there and the rich are taking more then their share thereby leaving less for everyone else..

But I think you already knew that.

 

[American Horse]

Helping to solve your own problems.....I have to say I am kind of shocked at some of the hateful comments from some people towards people that are rich. Also I am puzzled by how some are selective in who they have decided to dislike, like the Romneys......So If I am to understand it correctly, it is fine to dislike a rich republican, while the same people don't have any problems with rich people like the Kennedys..

Who is hating on the rich? It's okay to be rich but it is not okay to get a free ride from taxpayers.

How is it getting a free ride when the NUMBER OF DOLLARS you are paying is many times larger than the average taxpayer, as illustrated HERE?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Awwww....
...still upset that "Das Kapital" wasn't autographed to you?"

Oh come on now. I INVITE you to degrade me more. Come on, I am asking for you to rip me more. Please. C'mon, you can do better than that. C'mon, please? PLEEEEZ I beg of you. Lets start with anti american. C'mon. Do it. It will make both of us feel better. After 74 years on this earth it feels good to say it.

OK.....you asked for it.

Here it comes: You....you...DEMOCRAT!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, you've got me here! The average number of persons in a household decreased in the past 30 years from 2.8 to 2.5. Wow, it sure would explain why the incomes of the top 1% grew 40 times faster than in the median.

Or may be not?




So where can we see that individual income data?




The keyword here is of course "partially".



I have no problem with the rich earning more than the poor. The issue is that inequality is rising over time -- and as that trend continues, what will become of this country?



No, they not -- and that is the reason for taxing the rich more. We cannot all be CEO, someone has to clean the toilets too. And CEO should take home much more than a janitor so talented people have the incentives to advance their careers. But when CEO is bringing home 500 times more than a plumber, that is just ridiculous.

Tell me a single reason why setting 70% marginal tax rate for the rich is NOT the best way to pay for Medicare or social security, or defense?

1. "The issue is that inequality...."

No it isn't.


What someone else earns is none of your darn business.

Yes it is, as long as we have income taxes.



When I find it -- till then I have to rely on household census data, that shows inequality rising rapidly in the past 30 years.



That is a total BS, and you know it. A janitor can work himself do death 24/7, and he still will be making hundreds times less than a CEO. The kind of services you offer matters.



And what will happen if a few skilled workers begin to earn 99.9999% of nations income -- because the free market values their services that much? I'm not saying this will ever happen, but we are going that way in the past 30 years.



The definition of productivity is the value the market puts on one's services. If your services are in demand, then your productivity is high and you earn a lot of money -- but it does not mean you are working harder than everyone else. It means you were lucky to be born with that particular talent.



It does not explain why the incomes of the top 1% were growing 40 times faster than in the middle.

The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity.

That is the problem -- we should reward the hard work, not so much the talent one had born with, or his/her luck. Simply because we can't all become CEOs! Even if we all can master the skills -- someone has to vacuum floors.

4. But...if you want to fight 'inequality,' here's some:
The top 1% earn 17% of the money.... but pay 38% of the taxes.....
How come you're not incensed over that????

Because it is not enough -- top earners have to pay about 70% in income taxes, so low income earners can pay less. Because we only need enough inequality to keep people motivated.

…lush analytical framework…smashing crescendo…again, a fanatic’s ideology trumps his intellect…

…countered these mountains of hard facts with a big helping of the usual supercilious babble. …a mountain of unassailable empirical data…having the usual result with a Liberal.


Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter not a bit in informing belief.
You have performed the functions for which you were made:

a. you've ignored facts

b. you've ignored logic

c. you've personified what passes for thinking in a Liberal

d. and, best of all, you have opened the door for me to provide the facts and data that the 80-90% of readers of a thread will have a chance to mull over.


You're dismissed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh well, looks like PC and Sniper weren't as keen to debate the subject in detail as they let on.

This was your claim:

'"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."

Which is absurd and you cannot back up. You look like a fool once again.

Thanks for playin!

I listed the policies that conservatives support that shift wealth towards the wealthy. Can't you read?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."


The effluvia of a limited and fevered imagination.

Amazing how consistent you are....


I'd suggest that you converse with a conservative....but I can't imagine any wasting their time in said endeavor.

I'll converse with you then.

Name the conservative policies that contradict what I said.

Be specific.

"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."

Of course, the statement is that of a grade-school drop-out.

Conservative don't believe in 'distributing' wealth, and certainly don't imagine some Utopian government in which there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services to ascertain the ethereal 'equality.' The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state....

Which simply means that conservatives want the government to stay out of the economic system, and when the government is out of an economic system, the natural forces of capitalism will over time concentrate more and more wealth, and with it power, in the hands of a few.

You've supported my assertion, unintentionally, I'm sure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll converse with you then.

Name the conservative policies that contradict what I said.

Be specific.

"Conservatives believe that the nation is better off if that wealth is distributed in a way that concentrates large amounts in the hands of a (relative) few."

Of course, the statement is that of a grade-school drop-out.

Conservative don't believe in 'distributing' wealth, and certainly don't imagine some Utopian government in which there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services to ascertain the ethereal 'equality.' The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state....

Which simply means that conservatives want the government to stay out of the economic system, and when the government is out of an economic system, the natural forces of capitalism will over time concentrate more and more wealth, and with it power, in the hands of a few.

You've supported my assertion, unintentionally, I'm sure.

You don't have a clue as to what I said.

As expected.

Explaining to you?…as useless as trying to blow out a lightbulb.