Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Boss]

What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.

No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.

 

[Campbell]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.

 

[danielpalos]

would they bother with that form of employment if they could simply apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

 

[kyzr]

Not to butt in, but I tend to like the Bernie Sanders transaction tax on stock trades. He would use it to pay for college. I'd use it for SS and Medicare too. There is no benefit to high frequency computer trades. The purpose of the stock market is to raise capital and create jobs. The current system is a cash cow for traders who just steal our 401k funds. I'd also raise tax rates on short-sellers. The object is to create jobs.

Slimming down the tax code by closing loop-holes is a good idea. A small national sales tax would also get everyone to pay something.

 

[Papageorgio]

Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:

................................Total U S Debt............................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Let's just make them pay 90%...

Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.

Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?

What.... five people? Maybe?

Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy? The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig? You think that was it?

There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today. The difference is, you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today. Information was not public. Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.

Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.

Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts. You can't "make" people pay a tax. You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....

It's not a fixed game. Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire. How did he do that, if the game was fixed?

There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years. How is that possible if the game is rigged?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company. I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged. Idiot.

You are just wrong. As you people always are.

You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish ***** need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.

Bitter and envious. Pretty sad that at 80 you are still a bitter old person. You realized the Kennedy kids did nothing and took their daddy's bootlegging money. They drank, partied and killed. Funny how you don't care about that.

 

[Campbell]

What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.

No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.

Tell me something. What the hell has the modern Republican party ever done for anybody except the wealthy and corporations? They've spent like there's no tomorrow while cutting taxes and borrowing from foreign governments. If you count annual interest payments on existing debt they've caused 75% of the national debt and when Bill Clinton left a balanced budget with surpluses projected throughout the foreseeable future George W. Bush came along and increased his spending while cutting taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003 using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition. He funded his unnecessary wars with emergency spending bills...off budget. George Bush crashed the economy and handed 3/4 of a trillion dollars to the most powerful financial institutions in the world as he left office. I still believe that whole fiasco was cooked in the books and previously arranged. I wouldn't trust any of the greedy son-of-a-bitches in the shithouse with a muzzle on.

 

[hadit]

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

 

[hadit]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

I wonder why it's so impossible to even contemplate a career in a skill that doesn't require extensive schooling, like plumbing, carpentry, welding, automotive repair or electrical work? You can make good money in those fields.

 

[hadit]

What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school.

No, there are TONS of successful people who didn't have an Ivy League education. Or, money given to them by a wealthy relative. That's the great thing about a free society like ours, you can be successful with nothing more than your talent/skill, brain, drive and ambition. Nothing limits you... with the exception of ever-increasing Socialist government.

My brother-in-law is a classic case in point. He didn't finish high school, but apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for a couple of years just to learn the trade. Now he owns his own shop and is a huge success. It can be done, but it's not easy. It requires taking big risks and being 110% committed. Maybe that's the problem.

 

[dcraelin]

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

 

[hadit]

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

 

[dcraelin]

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

 

[Campbell]

Let's just make them pay 90%...

Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.

Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?

What.... five people? Maybe?

Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy? The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig? You think that was it?

There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today. The difference is, you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today. Information was not public. Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.

Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.

Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts. You can't "make" people pay a tax. You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....

It's not a fixed game. Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire. How did he do that, if the game was fixed?

There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years. How is that possible if the game is rigged?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company. I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged. Idiot.

You are just wrong. As you people always are.

You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish ***** need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.

Bitter and envious. Pretty sad that at 80 you are still a bitter old person. You realized the Kennedy kids did nothing and took their daddy's bootlegging money. They drank, partied and killed. Funny how you don't care about that.

If not for John Kennedy starting the moon landing project and Lyndon Johnson following through on it your foolish ass might be speaking Russian. Not only that the requirement for smaller electronic components brought about the development of micro circuitry and set this nation onto a path which brought us into the modern age which supports computers in homes, in cars, in planes and even on folk's arms. Since Dwight Eisenhower started the Interstate highway project the Republicans have never started any kind of government program which benefitted the common man. They're too goddam tied up with wars. Like I said, they've become the party of rich folks and corporations. Like I told you before, "TRICKLE DOWN" didn't work!!

This Did!!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.

Oh they've got things going their way. Look at this and make note that the lowest half of earners haven't even broken even when adjusted for inflation:

You're a moron. You see the bottom 10% being 16% higher as a bad thing. You see the middle being 25% higher as a bad thing. You see the upper middle class doubling as a bad thing. You see the rich being 300% higher as a bad thing. You Know why you see these as bad things? Because you're dumb ass piece of shit that can't even crack the bottom 1%. And who do you blame for not being rich? The people who are successful. ROFL What a dumb ass communist piece of shit you are. You want to move from the bottom to the top? GET UP OFF YOUR ASS.

 

[Boss]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.

Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.

I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.

You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.

 

[RKMBrown]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.

Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.

I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.

You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.

Morons like Cambell think people in the bottom 10% stay there for ever. They actually think your place in the quin-tiles is static. When I was 15 I was in the bottom quin-tile. Yeah well I was a kid in high school. I moved from the bottom to the top 10% before I turned 28. Just a bit of hard work on the right stuff is all it takes to move up the ladder. I bet Cambell's one of those people that suck at everything they do.

 

[Boss]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.

Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.

I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.

You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.

Morons like Cambell think people in the bottom 10% stay there for ever. They actually think your place in the quin-tiles is static. When I was 15 I was in the bottom quin-tile. Yeah well I was a kid in high school. I moved from the bottom to the top 10% before I turned 28. Just a bit of hard work on the right stuff is all it takes to move up the ladder. I bet Cambell's one of those people that suck at everything they do.

It's because the propaganda strategy developed to promote Socialism was forged in that environment. Across 19th century Europe and Asia, kings and dictators ruled over class (or caste) systems where people were born, lived and died in the same class. You couldn't ever be part of the upper class. It wasn't an option, you didn't get that opportunity. So someone comes along and promises something better for your class... Socialism is born.

The problem with Socialism is, it doesn't work on a large scale. It quickly becomes corrupted and a "ruling class" emerges. Then you still have this "evil Top 1%" but now they really ARE evil because they control both the money AND power, and if you give them trouble they shoot you in the head. The ONLY examples of successful socialist systems are where the community is isolated, close-knit, with little to no immigration or mobility of people due to climate, culture or resources.

 

[RKMBrown]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.

Ketchup soup? Did you ever have it? It's pretty gross but it's better than starving. I do know what it's like to be poor. That's what motivated me at a very early age to be something else. I was bound and determined to not be a "worker" and not be poor all my life.

I'm sorry that you somehow resent ME for your impoverished upbringing but I didn't have anything to do with that. On your little graphs and charts, I was belonging to the bar for the lower 5% during most of the 70s and 80s. Around the mid 80s, I belonged to the middle bars groups and by the late 90s, I was part of the upper 5% group. I can also tell you that government handouts had nothing to do with my success.

You are mired in propaganda constructed by Socialists who want to destroy the Capitalist free market system. It is ALL predicated on the idea that we are born into our class and never leave it. This is why you have charts comparing "group A" with "group B" without acknowledging the groups are constantly changing. If the groups always remained the same, then your propaganda makes rational emotional sense. Group B is doing better... growing faster... enjoying a better life... But group B is always accepting people from group A and visa versa. We are not confined by our class.

Morons like Cambell think people in the bottom 10% stay there for ever. They actually think your place in the quin-tiles is static. When I was 15 I was in the bottom quin-tile. Yeah well I was a kid in high school. I moved from the bottom to the top 10% before I turned 28. Just a bit of hard work on the right stuff is all it takes to move up the ladder. I bet Cambell's one of those people that suck at everything they do.

It's because the propaganda strategy developed to promote Socialism was forged in that environment. Across 19th century Europe and Asia, kings and dictators ruled over class (or caste) systems where people were born, lived and died in the same class. You couldn't ever be part of the upper class. It wasn't an option, you didn't get that opportunity. So someone comes along and promises something better for your class... Socialism is born.

The problem with Socialism is, it doesn't work on a large scale. It quickly becomes corrupted and a "ruling class" emerges. Then you still have this "evil Top 1%" but now they really ARE evil because they control both the money AND power, and if you give them trouble they shoot you in the head. The ONLY examples of successful socialist systems are where the community is isolated, close-knit, with little to no immigration or mobility of people due to climate, culture or resources.

Let's face it ... some people are so damn lazy and stupid they deserve to be ruled by despots.

 

[Andylusion]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.

Horse shit!! I can immediately tell that you have absolutely no idea about being poor. Once when I was about five years old and my daddy had hurt himself on the job and was fired my sister and I used to walk a mile up a busy west TN highway to a farm where they gave us milk by the gallon. People like you make my ass want to suck a lemon.

When that happens, please put it on youtube. You might be able to make some money off it.

That said, you are correct. I don't know what it is to really be absolutely destitute.
Part of the reason is because I had parents that did well. They did well, because they worked their butts off. They saved and invested. They lived a modest life style.

In short, they conducted themselves wisely.

At the same time though.... I've been working non-stop since my freshman year in high school. From then until today, I have had a steady 40 hour job every single year. When I got laid off, I found another. At different times, I've worked multiple jobs.

I was laid off in 07, 08, 09, and 2010. I found new jobs each and every single time... all during the "great recession".

I've worked some terrible jobs. And I've been so poor, that my clothes were falling apart.

But I still earned my bread, and lived off my own income.

So, no I don't know what it's like to dirty dirt poor. You are right. And most of the people, especially those on your side of the argument, never have either.

We live in the most wealthy country that has ever existed. Our poor people today, live a higher standard of living than some of the middle class around the world.

So it's really hard for me to sympathize with those that claim to be poor, and don't have a job.

 

[Boss]

Let's face it ... some people are so damn lazy and stupid they deserve to be ruled by despots.

I don't think it is stupidity or laziness as much as it is just plain ignorance. They simply fail to comprehend the power of the enormous freedoms our system affords them. You can see this in Campbell's posts to me where he laughs off "be anything you please" because he doesn't believe that is possible. Yet it's not only possible, it is the greatest aspect of a free enterprise, free market capitalist system. Our system is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man... but Socialists like Campbell want to ignore that reality and actually turn the tables on it to use it against itself...look at my chart which shows rich people get richer! Duh... they're supposed to!

We have unfortunately become a nation full of moronic idiots who have been spoiled their whole life. Taught by liberals to be victims, to blame their shortfalls on others, to be jealous and envious of those who have more, to view success as evil and corrupt. Most importantly, to cede their enormous freedoms and opportunity to government for the promise of a better life they will never see.