None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You're not Black, why do you defend Blacks?

Good point. I like RDean but just as the right wing can go way overboard; the left wing is equally moronic at times in their views.

LOL thats almost as good as my kennedy quote in my sig line!

 

[Disenchanted61]

because we're not petty, hand-wringing, covetous little looters.

are you always this stupid??

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not Black, why do you defend Blacks?

Denying civil rights, lynching, slavery, legislated discrimination really don't match up with raising the marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.5%. What a shallow argument you make.

I heard Jon Stewart last night make the same phoney argument.. Just before I switch him off (again). You class warriors know DAMN WELL -- that what the revolutionary leader is suggesting goes BEYOND just raising the top income bracket. Either y'all are stupid or dishonest.

Because the "Buffett Rule" and all this talk about "marginal rate" occurs because of CAPITAL GAINS tax rates, not the 35% rate. Raising just the INCOME rate doesn't fix the "buffett" problem and CLEARLY the DEMS are targeting CAP GAINS and OTHER taxes on "the rich" as well..

Don't lie...

 

[flacaltenn]

The bottom 50% of Americans control 2.5% of the wealth...

Hey Chris --- Does that 2.5% include the estimated $20BILL "wired home" to Mexico and other nations EVERY YEAR by immigrant workers and foreign nationals?

That factoid is screwed anyway because the bottom 50% own at least 25% of the cars and homes in this country plus land value. Can't be correct. It's a fabricated statistic somehow..

Tired of the same tortured studies being repeatedly quoted as divine gospel.. Got a REAL source for that number?

 

[Avatar4321]

because we're not petty, hand-wringing, covetous little looters.

are you always this stupid??

And what exactly was stupid about his answer?

 

[MikeK]

Why does the left hate rich people?

Why do rich people hate the left?

One stupid question deserves another.

How much is John Kerry worth? Nancy Pelosi? congress is full of million and billionairs Why do liberals hate certain rich people but forget about their own?

I suppose I qualify in your view as a Liberal but I don't believe I'm the only Liberal who is suspicious and wary of all wealthy politicians. While I feel it would be unfair to bar them from serving I do believe they should be required to post an annual net worth statement and publicly reveal the sources of any and all income. And the FBI should field a special unit dedicated to investigating all suspected conflicts of interest.

The problem is if it were possible to enact such controls we might as well go all the way and impose laws to prohibit any "contributions" to any elected official by anyone for any reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would just LOVE to hear what Buffett thinks about taxing all income the same, including capital gains and dividends. And also removing all deductions and exemptions, including donations to tax sheltered foundations. What's he think of a true flat tax, with no way out of paying 20% of all his income?

I think he'd hate the whole idea, because how's he supposed to make money off of something like that?

 

[Disenchanted61]

Because they're kool-aid drinkers. They've been told that rich people "give" them jobs, and they actually believe this.

The peasant grows the grain
The peasant's wife bakes the bread
The lord, who owns the fields, takes all the bread
Of which he gives back to the peasant enough to avoid starvation
The peasant is expected to be grateful

What gives people jobs is circulation of revenue. With out the jobs the wealthy has shipped overseas regardless of their demands being met, that would not be possible. So screw them from now on, or keep on getting screwed.

 

[westwall]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

Because the rules as they are st up now allow us little peons to try and become billionaires ourselves. We have the ability to become very wealthy. If you and your minions get their way, none of us would have that chance. Instead if you get your wish the billionaires and millionaires will be set in stone.

Social class will become stratified and the elites will no longer have to worry about one of us small fry coming up with a better widget that makes them have to improve their widget.

You and your fellow travellers are so illiterate and historically incompetant that you can't figure out your ideas do nothing but entrench the wealthy and make you more poor and powerless.

 

[Gadawg73]

Billionaires do not need anyone or care to have anyone defend them.
Why would they?
Yes, I am rich. Not a billionaire.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Billionaires do not need anyone or care to have anyone defend them.
Why would they?
Yes, I am rich. Not a billionaire.

Million Billion whats the difference between friends?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me that all this is is class warfare. "let's tax the millionaire" that's fine, but why? It can't be help the deficit because there simply is not enough cash amung the "rich" to make a difference. Why are we raising taxes in a resession? It doesn't matter on who ... Just answer the question "why are we raising taxes in a resession?"

Because the additional revenue will help to pay down the deficit and facilitate a federal jobs program.

Now, tell us why we shouldn't raise taxes on the richest Americans in a recession?

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

I realize that Obama has sold you liberal parrots on renaming "tax increases" as "revenue increases", but that's not actually how it works. Yes, all of the government's revenue comes from taxes, but that does NOT make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" synonymous.

You morons never seem to figure out that you're not dealing with blank, emotionless computer models; you're dealing with flesh-and-blood humans, who react negatively to being told, "Keep working your ass off, but get less out of it". They stop engaging in taxable activities, and start hiding their money where the government can't get it. The result is, inevitably, higher tax rates and LOWER tax revenues.

Take luxury taxes as an example. Liberals actually managed to push through a luxury tax on yacht-buying some time back. What could be more perfect? Only rich people buy yachts, after all. So we'll make those smug, spoiled bastards pay more for their decadent wealth, right?

Predictably - to everyone but liberals - the result was that the wealthy just stopped buying yachts, or started buying them in other countries. And, of course, the liberals have forgotten that while rich people BUY yachts, they aren't the ones who BUILD them. No, that was done by a lot of nice, blue-collar workers in the middle class. I say "was", because quite a few of them lost their jobs when their companies' customer base dried up and moved offshore.

No matter how much you shitstain liberals want to believe that anyone who makes over $200,000 a year is a Paris Hilton-style useless celebutante who can be smacked around and financially drained without consequence, it's never going to become true. Like it or not, we ARE all connected economically, and we DO need them just as much as they need us.

And wrong isn't going to become right no matter how hard you try to justify it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Billionaires do not need anyone or care to have anyone defend them.
Why would they?
Yes, I am rich. Not a billionaire.

Million Billion whats the difference between friends?

Ole Big reb and I have gone face to face on many issues as there are many we disagree on.
Not this one!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why does the left hate rich people?

Why do rich people hate the left?

One stupid question deserves another.

Aesop's Fables - No. 002 - THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGGS - Area 6 at Project HappyChild

No one wants to be the goose.

 

[Gadawg73]

It seems to me that all this is is class warfare. "let's tax the millionaire" that's fine, but why? It can't be help the deficit because there simply is not enough cash amung the "rich" to make a difference. Why are we raising taxes in a resession? It doesn't matter on who ... Just answer the question "why are we raising taxes in a resession?"

Because the additional revenue will help to pay down the deficit and facilitate a federal jobs program.

Now, tell us why we shouldn't raise taxes on the richest Americans in a recession?

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

I realize that Obama has sold you liberal parrots on renaming "tax increases" as "revenue increases", but that's not actually how it works. Yes, all of the government's revenue comes from taxes, but that does NOT make "tax increase" and "revenue increase" synonymous.

You morons never seem to figure out that you're not dealing with blank, emotionless computer models; you're dealing with flesh-and-blood humans, who react negatively to being told, "Keep working your ass off, but get less out of it". They stop engaging in taxable activities, and start hiding their money where the government can't get it. The result is, inevitably, higher tax rates and LOWER tax revenues.

Take luxury taxes as an example. Liberals actually managed to push through a luxury tax on yacht-buying some time back. What could be more perfect? Only rich people buy yachts, after all. So we'll make those smug, spoiled bastards pay more for their decadent wealth, right?

Predictably - to everyone but liberals - the result was that the wealthy just stopped buying yachts, or started buying them in other countries. And, of course, the liberals have forgotten that while rich people BUY yachts, they aren't the ones who BUILD them. No, that was done by a lot of nice, blue-collar workers in the middle class. I say "was", because quite a few of them lost their jobs when their companies' customer base dried up and moved offshore.

No matter how much you shitstain liberals want to believe that anyone who makes over $200,000 a year is a Paris Hilton-style useless celebutante who can be smacked around and financially drained without consequence, it's never going to become true. Like it or not, we ARE all connected economically, and we DO need them just as much as they need us.

And wrong isn't going to become right no matter how hard you try to justify it.

Not only the main argument but the CORRECT argument.
Boehner correctly made the analogy of the government to a cocaine addict.
Government never gets enough cash and coke heads never receive enough coke.
Sending $$ to the government with increased taxes labeled as "additional revenue" does dry up the economy.
As hard as the tax and spend liberals try to dress up their hog what they always end up doing is attempting to do something that is impossible: you can not polish A TURD.

 

[asaratis]

Rdean has no clue regarding who is rich and who is not. Liberals, in general have no clue regarding how to raise revenue other than to tax rich people and corporations.

They are too stupid to realize that lowering taxes and penalties on doing business would INCREASE the flow of money...and jobs. That are just too ******* stupid!

 

[Oddball]

The peasant grows the grain
The peasant's wife bakes the bread
The lord, who owns the fields, takes all the bread
Of which he gives back to the peasant enough to avoid starvation
The peasant is expected to be grateful

That sounds more like the principle behind the Internal Revenue Code than anything else.

 

[MikeK]

Yeah yeah yeah.....Same old pro organized labor 1960's power to the people bullshit.

Yes, screw the working man.

Same old Republican bullshit.

Define "working man".

Essentially it means the ordinary wage earner as opposed to the capitalist who derives income from the labor of others and/or from the dividends paid by capital investment. Apart from its most fundamental definition the term assumed a quasi-political meaning during the union movement of the thirties and forties when the American Middle Class rose to prominence and acquired power by accumulating fair wealth in return for its labor.

Through the imposition of supply side economics the wealth of the middle class has been systematically redistributed to a neo-aristocracy commonly referred to as the super-rich. Thus, as Chris has stated, the working man has been and is being screwed by the corporatist influence on (bribery of) our legislative body.

 

[MikeK]

WHAT "additional revenue"? The main argument against raising taxes in a recession is that there will be LESS revenue, not more, because raising taxes suppresses the economy.

That is what the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity have been telling us, and what the water-carrying Tories believe. But the economic events of the past three decades clearly shows them to be as wrong as two left feet.

The idea that taxing those who are holding the bulk of America's wealth resources will suppress employment is pure nonsense. When the operator of a business, whether a locksmith shop or an automobile manufacturer, perceives an opportunity for expansion and sets about to hire new employees the consequent expenditure is an operating cost which does not appear in the profit or assets margin.

Employees are operating expenses. There is absolutely no reason why apprehension about taxes should discourage an employer from expanding if an opportunity seems worthwhile. The fact that the most productive and prosperous period in American history occurred during the time when the upper level of the progressive tax rate was ninety-one percent should not be ignored.

 

[alan1]

None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

I'm not poor either.
Does that mean I should never defend poor people?

That inverted analogy is well-intentioned but its premise is weak. Because the poor often need to be defended whereas the rich are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

Why is the premise weak?
Should the majority not defend the minority to be treated equally?