Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[SAT]

[Not nearly as much as Medicare and Medicade...but that's not the point. You call for all these "essential" services when you have NO ******* MONEY TO PAY FOR THEM. That's the point. What you fail to understand is that a free market could deliver your ballots and screen airline passengers far more efficiently and effectively than a government bureaucracy and would do so without further burdening future generations with debt. Your largess is sinking the future of this country and you don't give a shit...but hey, if it makes you feel good, well, screw the kids, right?

Hey, you're the "screw the kids" guy.

A government exists for the people, to provide essential services.

Medicare and Medicaid need cost controls, yes. That's in the Affordable Health Care Act.

If I send a letter UPS, it is not delivered more cheaply than by the PO.

 

[eflatminor]

[Not nearly as much as Medicare and Medicade...but that's not the point. You call for all these "essential" services when you have NO ******* MONEY TO PAY FOR THEM. That's the point. What you fail to understand is that a free market could deliver your ballots and screen airline passengers far more efficiently and effectively than a government bureaucracy and would do so without further burdening future generations with debt. Your largess is sinking the future of this country and you don't give a shit...but hey, if it makes you feel good, well, screw the kids, right?

Hey, you're the "screw the kids" guy.

A government exists for the people, to provide essential services.

Medicare and Medicaid need cost controls, yes. That's in the Affordable Health Care Act.

If I send a letter UPS, it is not delivered more cheaply than by the PO.

Wrong. The government does not exist to provide services. It exists to keep us free and to keep the borders safe. Anything else it is required to do is clearly spelled out in the Constitution...where you won't find much about "essential services".

You're right, the post office can deliver a letter for less than UPS...unless of course you include the taxes poured into the post office on top of the cost of postage. Nevertheless, a post office is required under the Constitution, so let's deal with all the other unsustainable and ineffective programs that are not.

I can't even comment on your Obamacare comment...its just too ridiculous to warrant a proper response.

Lastly, you seem to forget that all these "essential" services are not being paid for. As we close in on $15 Trillion of debt, I wonder what your plan is to pay that back.

 

[rdean]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

They think they are supporting white people.

 

[SAT]

[
rong. The government does not exist to provide services. It exists to keep us free and to keep the borders safe. Anything else it is required to do is clearly spelled out in the Constitution...where you won't find much about "essential services".

Yes, flat, and that's a service.

Read the preamble.

You're right, the post office can deliver a letter for less than UPS...unless of course you include the taxes poured into the post office on top of the cost of postage. Nevertheless, a post office is required under the Constitution, so let's deal with all the other unsustainable and ineffective programs that are not.

Psst, go back and read the stuff from Wikipedia.

I can't even comment on your Obamacare comment...its just too ridiculous to warrant a proper response.

And three strikes, you're out.

Lastly, you seem to forget that all these "essential" services are not being paid for. As we close in on $15 Trillion of debt, I wonder what your plan is to pay that back.

We don't pay them back by collapsing the economy.

Part of the problem is that revenues are down due to the recession, part of the problem is that we still have the Bush era tax cuts, and part of the problem is health care costs. Which are dealt with in the AFA.

 

[eflatminor]

[
rong. The government does not exist to provide services. It exists to keep us free and to keep the borders safe. Anything else it is required to do is clearly spelled out in the Constitution...where you won't find much about "essential services".

Yes, flat, and that's a service.

Read the preamble.

You're right, the post office can deliver a letter for less than UPS...unless of course you include the taxes poured into the post office on top of the cost of postage. Nevertheless, a post office is required under the Constitution, so let's deal with all the other unsustainable and ineffective programs that are not.

Psst, go back and read the stuff from Wikipedia.

I can't even comment on your Obamacare comment...its just too ridiculous to warrant a proper response.

And three strikes, you're out.

Lastly, you seem to forget that all these "essential" services are not being paid for. As we close in on $15 Trillion of debt, I wonder what your plan is to pay that back.

We don't pay them back by collapsing the economy.

Part of the problem is that revenues are down due to the recession, part of the problem is that we still have the Bush era tax cuts, and part of the problem is health care costs. Which are dealt with in the AFA.

It's the debt, and the Fed's devaluation of the dollar, that are collapsing the economy. Again, how will you pay back your share...currently over $132,000???

Please, stop with the "Bush tax cuts"! Do you realize that we could tax 100% of the rich's income (all of it!) and we still wouldn't balance THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, much less begin to chip away at the debt. It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

[SAT]

[It's the debt, and the Fed's devaluation of the dollar, that are collapsing the economy. Again, how will you pay back your share...currently over $132,000???

Not according to, you know, economists. People who actually understand how, you know, economies work.

Please, stop with the "Bush tax cuts"! Do you realize that we could tax 100% of the rich's income (all of it!) and we still wouldn't balance THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, much less begin to chip away at the debt. It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Imagining the End of the Bush Tax Cuts - NYTimes.com

First, the Congressional Budget Office projects that not only would the short-term deficit come under control if Congress let current law stand, but the long-term deficit would, too. Austin Frakt has reproduced the chart on the Incidental Economist blog.

Let upper-end Bush-era tax cuts expire - The Hill's Congress Blog

President Obama’s call for cutting the deficit by $3 trillion includes the roll back of the Bush-era tax cuts on the top income tax brackets, a move expected to bring in about $800 billion over the next 10 years.

Economist's View: Greenspan: End Bush-Era Tax Cuts

 

[Intense]

What your Data shows is that that bottom 20% stuck on Food Stamps and Welfare need to make a greater effort.

And that will magically make the bottom 20% disappear, so that we only have the top 80% in a hundred?

I'm sure that there's a degree of merit in what you're saying. Everybody could try harder, the poor included. But right now there are far more applicants for jobs than there are jobs. And the problem is greatest among the less educated. You can try all you like, but you can't alter reality with your thoughts.

You can't close the Borders with your thoughts either. Removing the Illegal Immigration Problem alone opens up Jobs. My point on the Post was don't ***** about the 20% sitting home watching Maury, on those fighting to earn a living, like there is relevance. You choose to do Stamps, Welfare, even get your free Cell Phone and Minutes, hit various Food Banks and Pantries, fine. Don't ***** about it not going up in value as fast as the Achievers. You are ahead of the something for nothing game already. For those seriously committed to restructure, go for it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

I support capitalism over socialism.

Some make out better than others in capitalism, but I don't spend my time envying the rich. You will always be poor if you spend your time doing that...

Not to mention there would be no middle class without the rich who give you your jobs.

Under socialism you have the elitists and you have the dirt poor living in projects getting their monthly rations who go to their government dictated jobs 6 days a week that were handed to them while they would have to save for a year to buy a ******* TV...

Willing to trade off your present lifestyle for that of a socialist??

You know anything about socialism you racist ************??

 

[flacaltenn]

We haven't seen income equality like this since the robber barons. Ignoring that is stupid.

For some it is simply stupid. For those who are not stupid it reflects an indoctrinated mindset which is analogous to that of Nazi neophytes. Their minds are made up and they refuse to be inconvenienced by contradictory facts.

(Excerpt)

The income of the richest 1 percent in the U.S. soared 275 percent from 1979 to 2007, but the bottom 20 percent grew by just 18 percent, new government data shows.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study this week that compared real after-tax household income between 1979 and 2007, which were both after recessions and had similar overall economic activity.

Income More Than Doubles for Top 1 Percent From 1979 - ABC News

Ah yes.. You fell for it.. I'm reposting this "propaganda alert" from another response...

FlaCalTenn says:::

Listen buds -- it's a new age here. You have to start thinking like Russians in the 80's when they watched their news. ESPECIALLY the networks..

WHY on EARTH would CBO release a report NOW about how income levels changed between 1979 and

2007


Is CBO that far behind in their data? No -- CBO works for Congress. So to gin up support for OWS -- some leftist CongressCritter went to CBO and requested that they show the LARGEST gap in incomes possible...

How better to do that then CHERRY-PICKING the data to END just prior to the market and the economy tanking in 2008?? RIGHT SMACK DAB at the top of the BOOMING BUBBLE...

To survive --- we must think PRAVDA comrade. We must have our Double-Speak decoders handy at all times. AND -- we must drink LOTS of Wodka before consuming the State-Sponsored news sources...


BTW::::

Why did this CBO report pick 1979 as the STARTING DATE???

Because you want a MONSTROUS RATIO to rattle the class warriors. And 1979 would be a MINIMUM year for wealthy income coming out of the CARTER malaise...

Smell the propaganda......

Somebody's stoking the class war fire...

 

[Avatar4321]

Please explain Americans why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

I could never understand why the misguided mouthpieces in the Republican Party continue to make excuses for the top 1% wealthiest while dissing their own in the middle class. Cowards and Traitors, the bunch of ya. While the middle class is trying to unite against the wealthiest, some in the middle class are playing the Benedict Arnold role - all in the name of the Grand Ol' Party.

Shameless Cowards - the lot of you

-----

They think they are supporting white people.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with such blatant lies and inflammatory comments? Especially when numerous people have explained exactly what issues they have with MC's premise to begin with and not a single person has mentioned race. Are you merely incapable of understand? Are you unwilling to accept people at their word? Do you merely think that everyone is secretly thinking in terms of race and nothing else matters to anyone in the world?

 

[theliq]

DD you are a total waste of space

And if they, you, and everyone else all paid 17% on every dollar earned, regardless of source, and with no exceptions deductions or whatever... you would be OK with that??

Not really, because we've got a national debt problem.

Would be nice if the wealthy would pony up their fair share of at least 28 percent though.

And everyone else ponying up 28% on every dollar earned with no exceptions and no deductions, right??

 

[Avatar4321]

DD you are a total waste of space

No he isn't. You aren't either. We all have something to contribute. None of us are a waste.

 

[MikeK]

I would love to shake the hand of the fella trying to explain to those dumb freaks that they havne't a clue how good they have it. Even if poor in America, it's a whole lot better than most of the world, at least you have the option to work harder and better yourself. Although fewer and fewer are willing to put in the effort it takes to be successful thanks to the generous social programs.
****, you can even sit on your ass in America and "deserve" a living.

Someone needs to explain to the Russian (and you) that what he lived under in the USSR was not Socialism but Stalinism and that contemporary Denmark, which is a Socialist nation, is known to be the happiest country in the world.
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

That ignorant Russian is a perfect example of the kind of brainwashed water carriers for the One Percent who are helping to ruin America. He really believes the stupid nonsense he tried to shove down the throats of those people.

Now you don't really believe that, do you?
Sadly, you probably do.

[...]

Yes, I do believe it.

Because that boorish Russian was told the USSR was a socialist state he is content with that designation. But the fact is the totalitarian regime that prevailed there under Stalin was a perversion of socialism which the entire free world recognized and referred to as Stalinism. True socialism is the form of government which presently exists in several Scandinavian countries, Denmark most outstandingly. True socialism never prevailed in the USSR.

My motivation in stressing this point is the rather large percentage of Americans who believe, as that ignorant Russian believes, that socialism is the kind of evil system which existed in Soviet Russia. They believe it because the moneyed interests behind the right wing want them to believe it and support the propaganda that causes them to believe it. They do that because moneyed interests have always feared true socialism.

(Excerpt)

Stalinism refers to the allegedly Marxist–Leninist ideology as conceived and implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union included: rapid industrialization, Socialism in One Country, a centralized state, collectivization of agriculture, and subordination of interests of other communist parties to those of the Soviet party. When used in its broadest sense, the term "Stalinist" refers to "socialist" states comparable to the Stalin-era Soviet Union (i.e., those characterized by a high degree of centralization, totalitarianism, the use of a secret police, propaganda, and especially brutal tactics of political coercion). According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule."

Read more here: Stalinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MikeK]

Actually income equality is wider today than the robber baron days. Therefore, when there was very little government meddling in business, we had LESS income inequality, not more. Starting to see the picture here?

More importantly, please explain why income inequality is a bad thing. If a guy is smart, works hard, makes good decisions in launching a business to sell a product that the people want, he'll make good money. How is that bad for anyone else?

Our country was strongest with a strong Middle Class. The income inequality we are experiencing is destroying the Middle Class...the ACTUAL "job creators".

Again, ignoring that is stupid...almost as stupid as thinking the free market will regulate itself and that the modern day Robber Barons will pay a living wage out of the goodness of their generous hearts.

Income inequality does not destroy the middle class! Again, show us how a guy getting rich automatically means someone else gets less. Wealth is not a finite thing. It can be created or destroyed. It's not some pie to cut up evenly!

Income inequality does indeed destroy the middle class, which is a product of equitable distribution of wealth. The destruction is happening as you read this and we are watching it happen day by day. The American middle class is being destroyed by a corrupt legislative body, by Wall Street, by the banks and by an emerging corporatocracy.

And wealth certainly is finite. Where do you think wealth comes from -- outer space? Wealth is material resources which are represented by money. All material resources are finite. Fiat money, i.e., money which is printed with no material resources to support it is not wealth. It either is a promise or it is fraud. But it is not true wealth.

 

[MikeK]

Excellent play of the fear card. Rape! Rape! Redistribute more wealth or there will be more rape! Go ahead and drop the race card next...it's all you central planners have.

If you feel so passionately about a safety net, stop bitching and start a charity. Stealing money from productive members of society does not a safety net create...though it does create dependence on government and less jobs for those at risk. On the other hand, get them on the dole and they'll vote your way, eh?

The equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources via taxation is not "stealing."

To further explain my reference to America's wealth; every bit of wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting this Nation's natural, material and/or human resources is a percentage of America's wealth. For one who manages to accumulate wealth via some enterprise within the United States to assume he/she could have done just as well anywhere else is sheer arrogance as well as pronounced ignorance. Therefore taxation is payment to America for services rendered and resources provided.

"Stealing" is when one takes possession of another's wealth by force, stealth or guile. But when one who has nothing steals from another who has more than he needs the crime is mitigated by simple morality. So it may be said that the preventively expedient redistribution of excessive wealth via taxation is a charitable act.

"Exploiting" resources requires payment to the legal owner of those resources. Otherwise no one would sell their land or render their labor. They already paid for those services rendered or resources provided. Are you really so thick to not get that?

Are you saying it's okay to steal from a wealth person if you are poor? Sorry, you lose on that one.

Exploiting resources can mean something as simple as hiring someone to mow your lawn, an action in which you have made use of another (presumably) American citizen, which is a human resource. It can also mean drilling an oil well, or cutting and selling a field of timber, and on and on.

Re: your question about stealing from a wealthy person if one is poor: I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[oreo]

The equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources via taxation is not "stealing."

To further explain my reference to America's wealth; every bit of wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting this Nation's natural, material and/or human resources is a percentage of America's wealth. For one who manages to accumulate wealth via some enterprise within the United States to assume he/she could have done just as well anywhere else is sheer arrogance as well as pronounced ignorance. Therefore taxation is payment to America for services rendered and resources provided.

"Stealing" is when one takes possession of another's wealth by force, stealth or guile. But when one who has nothing steals from another who has more than he needs the crime is mitigated by simple morality. So it may be said that the preventively expedient redistribution of excessive wealth via taxation is a charitable act.

"Exploiting" resources requires payment to the legal owner of those resources. Otherwise no one would sell their land or render their labor. They already paid for those services rendered or resources provided. Are you really so thick to not get that?

Are you saying it's okay to steal from a wealth person if you are poor? Sorry, you lose on that one.

Exploiting resources can mean something as simple as hiring someone to mow your lawn, an action in which you have made use of another (presumably) American citizen, which is a human resource. It can also mean drilling an oil well, or cutting and selling a field of timber, and on and on.

Re: your question about stealing from a wealthy person if one is poor: I don't know what you're talking about.

It's hard to figure out a liberal.

 

[Lakhota]

Paul Ryan Is Wrong: Talking About Income Inequality Isn't Dividing America, Actual Income Inequality Is | ThinkProgress

 

[Avatar4321]

Paul Ryan Is Wrong: Talking About Income Inequality Isn't Dividing America, Actual Income Inequality Is | ThinkProgress

Interesting dates you are using there. I can't imagine why you just so happen to have stopped the graph the year before the economic downturn. Hmmm. Is there something afterwards that you dont want people to see? Something that might possibly hurt your argument?

 

[Unkotare]

Our country was strongest with a strong Middle Class. The income inequality we are experiencing is destroying the Middle Class...the ACTUAL "job creators".

Again, ignoring that is stupid...almost as stupid as thinking the free market will regulate itself and that the modern day Robber Barons will pay a living wage out of the goodness of their generous hearts.

Income inequality does not destroy the middle class! Again, show us how a guy getting rich automatically means someone else gets less. Wealth is not a finite thing. It can be created or destroyed. It's not some pie to cut up evenly!

Income inequality does indeed destroy the middle class, which is a product of equitable distribution of wealth. The destruction is happening as you read this and we are watching it happen day by day. The American middle class is being destroyed by a corrupt legislative body, by Wall Street, by the banks and by an emerging corporatocracy.

And wealth certainly is finite. Where do you think wealth comes from -- outer space? Wealth is material resources which are represented by money. All material resources are finite. Fiat money, i.e., money which is printed with no material resources to support it is not wealth. It either is a promise or it is fraud. But it is not true wealth.

Maybe there should be a section just for the drones, bobble-heads, and paid shills to endlessly repeat their far-left talking points. That's all numbskulls like you do anyway.

 

[Unkotare]

Death of the middle class? Think again | Gregg Easterbrook