"Income Inequality": So What?

[Fordsflylow]

If you are implying you are the "master", please "master" tell me where re-distribution has worked. Every incident I have read about, watched on the news, the mobs got to party for about a month, and then it turns out, their lives are worse than they were before (the people that were the anchors of society, the producers were dead, or forced to flee). The production was lower, the standard of living was lower, the education was lower, the expectations were lowered (if they weren't, you got to see the grave). So please, please give us an honest example of where redistribution of wealth works.

Tell us "your" plan to keep the producers producing, and the liberty in place, please, master.

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

Yeah, it works so great you can't find where I "hid" the US Census Bureau's website, and never heard of the Annual Poverty Report.

Don't flatter yourself, fucktard. You can yell, "NEXT!" when you've finished with ONE debate in any manner other than, "You don't have a link, so you've lied, and I WIN!" Until then, all you're calling for is the next person to whip your ass.

Ahh still trolling, refusing to admit to being wrong, and adding nothing of value to the convo per as usual I see

 

[Care4all]

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”



John Adams also had an opinion. “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”


And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,


“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”


What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info


President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”


Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”


Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”


I guess Our founding fathers and previous presidents must have been class warfare mongers, huh?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

Yeah, it works so great you can't find where I "hid" the US Census Bureau's website, and never heard of the Annual Poverty Report.

Don't flatter yourself, fucktard. You can yell, "NEXT!" when you've finished with ONE debate in any manner other than, "You don't have a link, so you've lied, and I WIN!" Until then, all you're calling for is the next person to whip your ass.

Ahh still trolling, refusing to admit to being wrong, and adding nothing of value to the convo per as usual I see

I rejected official government data. You rejected it because it does not fit your liberal template. You do not get to create your own reality then demand others accept it.
Facts are facts. You LOSE.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'll leave it up to you and your ditto head budz to state what you think I THINK per as usual. It sure does add up, look at the deficit! 2 wars, trillion $ pharma gimmee, tax breaks (while at war, first time in history), etc. all on the nations credit card under a con controlled presidency and congress. TRY and weasle out of that FACT jack.

You really need to have that voluntary amnesia looked at by a professional. lol

Don't go thinking you can pull that shit here.
Government has a spending problem. Not a revenue problem.
Notice I stated "government"....No mention of party.
And please don't try feeding us that righteous indignation over government spending.
Please. You libs could not give a shit about spending. In fact, you support deficit spending.
You people view taxation as a means to punish.

Of course there is a revenue problem when there are 10's of million's of folks unemployed and not paying taxes. The corporations who have caused this sham of an economy to tank ought to choke up some of that $2.5 TRILLION they scammed from retirements, etc. and are sitting on - in off-shore accounts - while paying nothing in taxes. Not to mention, the welfare for the rich (i.e. subsidies, gov gimmees, etc.) they get from their bought and paid for govt.

You may bloviate all you like.
It doesn't change the facts.
Links are required here. Not just your say so..
10's of millions of people are unemployed? Prove it.
$2.5 trillion hidden in off shore accounts? Prove it.
Retirements? HUH? What's a "retirement"?.....Do you mean "pension funds"....Umm, you ahd better look at the fund managers that the people running the pension funds ( union bosses) hired to invest the pensioner's money.
The spending problem is not the shit you mentioned above.
The spending is the spending. It is not because the politicians do not have enough.
The federal government takes in plenty. The fools on Capitol Hill cannot control themselves.
They do not over spend because people and companies legally take advantage of the US Tax Code.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Yeah, it works so great you can't find where I "hid" the US Census Bureau's website, and never heard of the Annual Poverty Report.

Don't flatter yourself, fucktard. You can yell, "NEXT!" when you've finished with ONE debate in any manner other than, "You don't have a link, so you've lied, and I WIN!" Until then, all you're calling for is the next person to whip your ass.

Ahh still trolling, refusing to admit to being wrong, and adding nothing of value to the convo per as usual I see

I rejected official government data. You rejected it because it does not fit your liberal template. You do not get to create your own reality then demand others accept it.
Facts are facts. You LOSE.

You provided no official anything, so I have no clue what you're claiming? What you and many of you ditto heads fail to absorb is that a great majority of people in the lower classes are losing, have been losing, and will continue to lose until this shit is changed.

The only ones who support this current status quo are either the wealthy or the blind, deaf, and dumb idiots following them. In which category do you fit?

 

[Fordsflylow]

Thomas Jefferson also said this in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”



John Adams also had an opinion. “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be President also had plenty to say about corporations…

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”


And in a November 21, 1864 letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Lincoln wrote,


“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”


What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations | Addicting Info


President Grover Cleveland witnessed how corporations treated its labor force and had this to say in 1888,

“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”


Theodore Roosevelt did not hate corporations. He simply wanted them to treat workers how they deserved to be treated and to serve the public faithfully and honestly. He believed in honest competition and fair prices. Roosevelt believed that government had not only a duty, but a right to regulate corporations just as the founding generation had done, stating that,

“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

And in his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated his intentions toward corporations.

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”


Teddy never stopped fighting for workers and consumers even after his presidency when he said this as the Progressive Party candidate for President in 1912,

“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”


I guess Our founding fathers and previous presidents must have been class warfare mongers, huh?

That spells it out nicely. Thanks for bringing some real intelligence to the convo, now if the ditto heads would just learn to read or better yet think.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Don't go thinking you can pull that shit here.
Government has a spending problem. Not a revenue problem.
Notice I stated "government"....No mention of party.
And please don't try feeding us that righteous indignation over government spending.
Please. You libs could not give a shit about spending. In fact, you support deficit spending.
You people view taxation as a means to punish.

Of course there is a revenue problem when there are 10's of million's of folks unemployed and not paying taxes. The corporations who have caused this sham of an economy to tank ought to choke up some of that $2.5 TRILLION they scammed from retirements, etc. and are sitting on - in off-shore accounts - while paying nothing in taxes. Not to mention, the welfare for the rich (i.e. subsidies, gov gimmees, etc.) they get from their bought and paid for govt.

You may bloviate all you like.
It doesn't change the facts.
Links are required here. Not just your say so..
10's of millions of people are unemployed? Prove it.
$2.5 trillion hidden in off shore accounts? Prove it.
Retirements? HUH? What's a "retirement"?.....Do you mean "pension funds"....Umm, you ahd better look at the fund managers that the people running the pension funds ( union bosses) hired to invest the pensioner's money.
The spending problem is not the shit you mentioned above.
The spending is the spending. It is not because the politicians do not have enough.
The federal government takes in plenty. The fools on Capitol Hill cannot control themselves.
They do not over spend because people and companies legally take advantage of the US Tax Code.

This confirms my belief and is PROOF positive that you have no clue wtf you are writing about. If links are required here where's your budz linky's I asked for?

You really ought to at least provide common sense and not just claim you have it.

Next!

 

[logical4u]

Indeed it is pertinent! You have much to learn grasshoppa!

If you are implying you are the "master", please "master" tell me where re-distribution has worked. Every incident I have read about, watched on the news, the mobs got to party for about a month, and then it turns out, their lives are worse than they were before (the people that were the anchors of society, the producers were dead, or forced to flee). The production was lower, the standard of living was lower, the education was lower, the expectations were lowered (if they weren't, you got to see the grave). So please, please give us an honest example of where redistribution of wealth works.

Tell us "your" plan to keep the producers producing, and the liberty in place, please, master.

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

 

[regent]

If you are implying you are the "master", please "master" tell me where re-distribution has worked. Every incident I have read about, watched on the news, the mobs got to party for about a month, and then it turns out, their lives are worse than they were before (the people that were the anchors of society, the producers were dead, or forced to flee). The production was lower, the standard of living was lower, the education was lower, the expectations were lowered (if they weren't, you got to see the grave). So please, please give us an honest example of where redistribution of wealth works.

Tell us "your" plan to keep the producers producing, and the liberty in place, please, master.

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

no!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Of course there is a revenue problem when there are 10's of million's of folks unemployed and not paying taxes. The corporations who have caused this sham of an economy to tank ought to choke up some of that $2.5 TRILLION they scammed from retirements, etc. and are sitting on - in off-shore accounts - while paying nothing in taxes. Not to mention, the welfare for the rich (i.e. subsidies, gov gimmees, etc.) they get from their bought and paid for govt.

You may bloviate all you like.
It doesn't change the facts.
Links are required here. Not just your say so..
10's of millions of people are unemployed? Prove it.
$2.5 trillion hidden in off shore accounts? Prove it.
Retirements? HUH? What's a "retirement"?.....Do you mean "pension funds"....Umm, you ahd better look at the fund managers that the people running the pension funds ( union bosses) hired to invest the pensioner's money.
The spending problem is not the shit you mentioned above.
The spending is the spending. It is not because the politicians do not have enough.
The federal government takes in plenty. The fools on Capitol Hill cannot control themselves.
They do not over spend because people and companies legally take advantage of the US Tax Code.

This confirms my belief and is PROOF positive that you have no clue wtf you are writing about. If links are required here where's your budz linky's I asked for?

You really ought to at least provide common sense and not just claim you have it.

Next!

I am not responsible for anyone else.
The OP provided the source of his post. The US Census Bureau......
Don't ask me about what somepone else wrote. That is a defense mechanism for "you have no rebuttal".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

Yes.....The US Census Bureau is full of shit..
Of course it is. Because the stats don't fit the liberal template.
Since you have been long on complaining. How about a solution. What's your best idea.
And don't say increase taxes. Tell you why...No society in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
Higher taxes hurt EVERYONE.
If you believe soaking the wealthy will solve all of your problems, you're living in a parallel universe.
That additional confiscation WILL find it's way to the very people you want to enrich off the backs of the producers.
Let's say for a moment you are correct. The wealthy are sitting on cash. The why is not pertinent for purposes of this post. Would it not be logical to assume that when those who have wealth in preparation of higher taxes, would not stash as much of their wealth as possible?
Is it your assumption that the federal government give itself broad and far reaching powers to go into bank accounts and investment accounts and take what it wishes?
The best way to crush an economy is to have government run the economy.

I never claimed that of the US Census. Do you not know how to read? I did call cecilie1210's figures/claims he/she listed that is not based on US Census data, nor did the bs he listed come from the US Census data.

Taxes are necessary, get used to it.

No raising the wealthy's taxes is not soaking them and it would be a good start in cutting the deficit. In comparison, raising taxes on those with meager earnings is soaking them, but that SHOULD be obvious to anyone with even a half a brain cell. It's also better than raising the deficit which is what your con budz love to do while at the same time pretending they are conservative. If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem?

The rest of your tripe isn't worth a response, but I would suggest you become more educated before trying to come across as some now-it-all - which you ain't.

"I have no idea where to find US Census Bureau data without a 'linky', and I have no idea what the US Census Bureau does, but I just KNOW that the facts I was given were false without even bothering to check!"

It's a good thing you don't think his "tripe" is worth a response, because you sure the **** didn't give one.

Hey, Mr. Show Me Some Proof, where's the substantiation for YOUR assertions in this pile of swill? "Raising the wealthy's taxes would be a good start on reducing the deficit"? Prove it. "If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem"? Prove it.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your whole schtick is "My words should be taken at face value, but anything I hear that I don't like should be called a lie, and any source cited should be denied as existing. And when people ignore me in disgust at my ignorance, I declare victory!" I'm not really suprised, mind you, that the only achievement you've ever had is to drive people away with your obtuse ignorance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I bet you and folks like you are a salesman's best friend, and will buy anything. Of course the wealthy are going to try and fool fools like you into buying anything that supports their belief and the status quo, no matter how far out there it is. Many of the wealthy are a privileged minority, driven by simple unadulterated GREED and no different than hoarders of trinkets and such. They are in a full fledged assault on scamming anyone middle class or poor who will swallow what it is they are selling, be it advice, a product, or service.

Just because you and your ilk buy into their bs/crap does not make you intelligent, smart, or anything near it. In fact, you and your ilk are schmuck's who are helping those who are crooked.

The fact remains, major income inequality exists moreso than ever in the history of this country and has not been proven false by ALL the bs spewed by you blind con followers.

The fact also remains, that giving tax cuts to the wealthy has done nothing to help the average "real working" joe/jane or to create jobs. It has done the exact opposite. The proof is in the puddin! Instead it has helped to make this sham of an economy what it is today.

Obama has not increased taxes. In fact, he has been forced by the con's who control the house to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy that scam artist bush enacted, which have not worked and will never work no matter how low they may go. How much more proof do you need to wake tfu?

You ever figure out what the US Census Bureau does, or where I'm "hiding" their website on the Internet, shitforbrains? If not, you need to shut the **** up and get back to work on it.

Still taking the low road I see. lol If I were a betting man, I'd bet my bottom dollar you have NEVER admitted to being wrong about a f'n thing ever. Now run along child!

That's for people who are wrong. If I were a betting woman, I'd bet you know more about that than I would.

Now run along and find the "hidden" Census Bureau website, fool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

Yeah, it works so great you can't find where I "hid" the US Census Bureau's website, and never heard of the Annual Poverty Report.

Don't flatter yourself, fucktard. You can yell, "NEXT!" when you've finished with ONE debate in any manner other than, "You don't have a link, so you've lied, and I WIN!" Until then, all you're calling for is the next person to whip your ass.

Ahh still trolling, refusing to admit to being wrong, and adding nothing of value to the convo per as usual I see

Ahh. Still bullshitting, still pretending that your ignorance makes me wrong, and not knowing value if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the shriveled raisin you call your left testicle.

I'll admit I was wrong when your lazy dead ass takes itself to the "hidden" US Census Bureau website, finds the Annual Poverty Report, and shows me the "real" facts to contradict what I said.

Calling me wrong without proving me wrong is the exact same as saying I'm right, and you're too stupid and chickenshit to handle it. In other words, you LOSE, with every post you make that doesn't prove me wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course there is a revenue problem when there are 10's of million's of folks unemployed and not paying taxes. The corporations who have caused this sham of an economy to tank ought to choke up some of that $2.5 TRILLION they scammed from retirements, etc. and are sitting on - in off-shore accounts - while paying nothing in taxes. Not to mention, the welfare for the rich (i.e. subsidies, gov gimmees, etc.) they get from their bought and paid for govt.

You may bloviate all you like.
It doesn't change the facts.
Links are required here. Not just your say so..
10's of millions of people are unemployed? Prove it.
$2.5 trillion hidden in off shore accounts? Prove it.
Retirements? HUH? What's a "retirement"?.....Do you mean "pension funds"....Umm, you ahd better look at the fund managers that the people running the pension funds ( union bosses) hired to invest the pensioner's money.
The spending problem is not the shit you mentioned above.
The spending is the spending. It is not because the politicians do not have enough.
The federal government takes in plenty. The fools on Capitol Hill cannot control themselves.
They do not over spend because people and companies legally take advantage of the US Tax Code.

This confirms my belief and is PROOF positive that you have no clue wtf you are writing about. If links are required here where's your budz linky's I asked for?

You really ought to at least provide common sense and not just claim you have it.

Next!

That's right, folks. The line forms on the right to deliver a swift kick to Ford's ass and hear him claim it as a victory. No shoving, please wait your turn patiently, he has plenty of ass to kick.

Still waiting on you to figure out where I "hid" the US Census Bureau's website and refute the facts with something more than, "That's not Census data, you're lying, and no, I didn't bother to check!" But I really enjoy watching you proudly proclaim your loss with every post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nope, not a master, but I do have a brain and it works just fine and can see and smell bs when I read it or hear it.

Next!

So your answer to "show me how this can work" is "trust me"? My answer is, no, I do not trust you.

Does the government have a responsiblity in how the nation's weath is distributed?

No, because wealth is not "distributed".

 

[Darkwind]

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

In fact, that is correct. It has nothing to do with genetics, but with the fact that if parents are successful, they send their kids to better schools, who then get higher education (note, I said higher, not better) which, of course, opens more doors for them. Also, they learn at an early age what it means to be successful, and utilize that attitude.

I can take the richest guy in your state, take everything away from him, or her, and do the same with you.

The rich person will succeed while you'll probably rise to your current mediocre level.

Before you ask, I can tell you exist at a mediocre level because of your philosophy on life. You expect government to be an equalizing force, while exceptional people understand that government is a tool, to be limited and used sparingly.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Yes.....The US Census Bureau is full of shit..
Of course it is. Because the stats don't fit the liberal template.
Since you have been long on complaining. How about a solution. What's your best idea.
And don't say increase taxes. Tell you why...No society in modern history has ever been able to tax itself into prosperity.
Higher taxes hurt EVERYONE.
If you believe soaking the wealthy will solve all of your problems, you're living in a parallel universe.
That additional confiscation WILL find it's way to the very people you want to enrich off the backs of the producers.
Let's say for a moment you are correct. The wealthy are sitting on cash. The why is not pertinent for purposes of this post. Would it not be logical to assume that when those who have wealth in preparation of higher taxes, would not stash as much of their wealth as possible?
Is it your assumption that the federal government give itself broad and far reaching powers to go into bank accounts and investment accounts and take what it wishes?
The best way to crush an economy is to have government run the economy.

I never claimed that of the US Census. Do you not know how to read? I did call cecilie1210's figures/claims he/she listed that is not based on US Census data, nor did the bs he listed come from the US Census data.

Taxes are necessary, get used to it.

No raising the wealthy's taxes is not soaking them and it would be a good start in cutting the deficit. In comparison, raising taxes on those with meager earnings is soaking them, but that SHOULD be obvious to anyone with even a half a brain cell. It's also better than raising the deficit which is what your con budz love to do while at the same time pretending they are conservative. If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem?

The rest of your tripe isn't worth a response, but I would suggest you become more educated before trying to come across as some now-it-all - which you ain't.

"I have no idea where to find US Census Bureau data without a 'linky', and I have no idea what the US Census Bureau does, but I just KNOW that the facts I was given were false without even bothering to check!"

It's a good thing you don't think his "tripe" is worth a response, because you sure the **** didn't give one.

Hey, Mr. Show Me Some Proof, where's the substantiation for YOUR assertions in this pile of swill? "Raising the wealthy's taxes would be a good start on reducing the deficit"? Prove it. "If that's true why then has ever con pres since and including reagan raised the deficit far greater than any dem"? Prove it.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your whole schtick is "My words should be taken at face value, but anything I hear that I don't like should be called a lie, and any source cited should be denied as existing. And when people ignore me in disgust at my ignorance, I declare victory!" I'm not really suprised, mind you, that the only achievement you've ever had is to drive people away with your obtuse ignorance.

If you really want I can give you a linky to support my claim that lowering taxes have not created jobs, but is it really necessary? It's been proven over the past 10 years. All one really has to do is look at the past 10 years where the wealthy's taxes were lowered at the beginning of bush's terms ($6.2 trillion added to the deficit) and walla very few if any livable wage jobs created and an overall net loss over his tenure. Meanwhile, the wealthy have enjoyed RECORD bonuses, RECORD increases in wealth AT THE VERY SAME TIME the lower classes have increasingly struggled, the credit card charges bushy ran up come due and the deficit increases. It's not calculous, algebra, trig, etc., it's simple math and the ability to apply cause and effect/affect. I can supply a non-partisan linky if you'd like, but do you really want to read the dier bs? It's in your face if one only looks with an open mind AND exactly as I just spelled out for you.

As for the debt per pres , here ya go, and there are plenty in which to choose from; File:Federal Debt 1901-2010.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The following is a snipit from this article, which shows Reagan (1985) and the con's running the house of reps (nations purse) then Bush/shrub (2004) and the con's running both the house and senate; "The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).[36]" Don't stop there, it's very interesting reading to those of us who like FACTS.

While I'm at it, and seeing as you have no linky for your CLAIM about the poor, here's the linky to what you claimed supports your claim(s) and is knee deep bs. Poverty - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau

Now you care to show me where that jives with that list of bs you posted?

 

[Fordsflylow]

No, because wealth is not "distributed".

You must have either been asleep for the past 10+ years where the rich got filthier rich and the middle and lower classes got poorer. You were either asleep, on some kind of mind altering drug, OR need to be on some mind altering drug but then one needs a mind to start with.

 

[Fordsflylow]

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

In fact, that is correct. It has nothing to do with genetics, but with the fact that if parents are successful, they send their kids to better schools, who then get higher education (note, I said higher, not better) which, of course, opens more doors for them. Also, they learn at an early age what it means to be successful, and utilize that attitude.

I can take the richest guy in your state, take everything away from him, or her, and do the same with you.

The rich person will succeed while you'll probably rise to your current mediocre level.

Before you ask, I can tell you exist at a mediocre level because of your philosophy on life. You expect government to be an equalizing force, while exceptional people understand that government is a tool, to be limited and used sparingly.

You seem awful sure of yourself. I suggest you not rely on that lame ass crystal ball you have. Do you care to address nepotism, upper class networking, etc. that you conveniently left out of that rant?

You left out one other very important aspect, it's not so much what you know as it is to WHOM one knows. The wealthy and their offspring have a huge leg up so to speak/write and rarely does it work out positively.

Consider this. With all the gov cuts (i.e. 600,000+ public sector jobs lost/gone, etc.) and the fact that a gov salary vs private sector salary will not attract those who excelled in college, etc to the govt UNLESS like me they would rather do what is right for the nation as a whole.

Add to that the fact that some if not many of those who are "successful" (if that's what one wants to call it) in the private sector are assholes first and foremost, which become rich assholes ( i.e. romney, adelson, koch bro's etc.) and shit on the lower classes while thinking they and those like them deserve preferential treatment, special access to what was once "We the People's" govt and is now there's. How exactly is that recipe good for the "general welfare" of the nation?