Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[Wry Catcher]

I do all the time. I even apologize for them.

That never occurred to you, though, did it?

So...you fucked up, and it's MY fault.

You really are not very bright, are you?

Then why do you pretend your opinion matters?

And once again, you speak of matter of which you know nothing.

E-6s are supervisors. As an E-4, I worked unsupervised because I knew what I was doing. As an E-5, I led maintenance crews and wrote performance reports and decorations. As an E-6, I managed a billion dollars' worth of equipment. I told (respectfully) O-6s that they couldn't have the equipment they wanted. When I retired, my Director, another O-6, said he'd heard nothing but compliments for my work from those same O-6s whose requests I turned down. Generals and command chief master sergeants have given me coins for my work.

Now, do you really want to continue bloviating about construction and the military as if you know something about it? I really don't mind making you look stupid.

Or, if you'd rather, before you post, you could ask yourself, "Have I ever done this?" If the answer is no, then you could just STFU and not look like such an arrogant prick.

But that never occurred to you, either.

Really, in my experience the division officer (in my case, the Lt. Cmdr. gave the orders and the Chief supervised the division. First Class and Second Class PO's implemented the division operations under direction and worked within their rate.

Other than boot camp and a few temp assignments I was at sea.

You'd think someone as allegedly intelligent as you are could tell the difference between the Navy and the Air Force.

Guess not.

The Air Force expects initiative and self-reliance from our Airmen. Does the Navy need their widdle hands held all the time?

It was. I spent about half my career in a cublicle. That's when I managed the billion-dollar fleet of equipment. The other stuff I did in the field.

But, hey, nice try at minimizing my service. Too bad reality doesn't agree with your arrogant prickery.

Of course you don't, now that I've shown your idiotic assertions to be stupid.

Maybe you ought to ask yourself if the ideology you hold is good for the country.

I have, and it is. Your problem with it is not that it's bad for the country, but that it's bad for the Democratic Party.

As a patriot you might consider how the avarice and bigotry and the callous disregard for other Americans which today's Republican Party advocates fits with the principles upon our nation was founded.

Did you know that the stereotypes and talking points you just spewed exist only in the minds of idiot leftists incapable of independent thought?

I hate to break it to you, but you're really a dumb person. No, really, you are. And every time you try to sound smart, it just totally fails. And there are few things more funny that a dumb person insisting he's smart.

As a know it all will you please explain to me how a policy which allowes for too little wealth to the many and too much to the few will work out? A flat tax in a decade will redistribute the wealth, simple math even someone who managed only millions should understand.

Explain the consequences of Citzens United v. FEC, does it really expand liberty and freedom? Explain why you think so, if you do? (if you do, why is the GOP pushing for tax cuts to corportions? If they have the rights of a person, shouldn't they pay the same rate?)

Just two of many questons which occur to me. And I'm a dumb leftist as you pointed out. I'm sure you can offer answers for my education.

 

[georgephillip]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

You don't actually believe that jobs are created by poor people do you? They are created by wealthy Americans, and if you tax them, they will lay off employees or raise the price of their products to cover the higher tax, either way, it hurts the middle and lower class.
If you wanna get out of this recession, stop with all the entitlement spending, because noone is entitled to it anyways, that alone would save hundreds of billions a year. Repeal Obamacare also, it will be in the Red from the get go, also overhaul Social Security and medicare and medicaid.
The GOP has it right, it's just not the answer you like so you're against it. The only way to get our financial house in order is to reign in some of this spending and overhaul these programs, it's the only way. That and stop ******* around in Libya. The only reason Berry is over there is because it's just another way to spend billions of dollars.

Depending on your definition of "wealthy" most US jobs are created (and destroyed) by small businesses. Government at all levels also supplies a lot of paychecks. The very rich gamble in Wall Street's casino, where you are expected to pick up any losses, or they invest in parts of the world where workers kill each other over $2 a day jobs.

This recession stems from lack of jobs.
Middle class jobs that pay enough for consumers to drive 70% of US GDP.
The GOP's plan is to continue cutting taxes on the very rich and pay for it by selling Social Security to Wall Street.
You're welcome to my share of that solution.

A more practical plan, imo, is to stop borrowing from the richest individual Americans and corporations and tax them at the same rates they paid prior to Reagan. Then use that money to fund high-speed rail and other 21st century infrastructure projects.

 

[kwc57]

Avoiding the challenge George?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Avoiding the challenge George?

Seems like daveboy is avoiding my challenge, K57, maybe you can help me understand.

Please explain to me how a policy which allowes for too little wealth to the many and too much to the few will work out? A flat tax in a decade will redistribute the wealth, simple math explain why.

Also, what are the consequences of Citzens United v. FEC? Does it really expand liberty and freedom? Explain why you think so, if you do? (if you do, why is the GOP pushing for tax cuts to corportions? If they have the rights of a person, shouldn't they pay the same rate?)

 

[georgephillip]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

Welllllll, aren't you awfully generous with other people's money. Tell you what, since you are so big hearted, I have a proposal for you to put up or shut up. When you leave work today, drive thru the part of town where the homeless hang out. Take one home with you. I'm sure you have that "junk" room that most people have. You know, the one that is never used excpet to accumulate all the extra crap we all own. Give that room to the homeless person. Set a place at your table for them. Ask what they like to eat and tell them you'll pick it up on the next run to the grocery store. Give him a key to the house and tell him to feel free to entertain his friends. You have more than you need, share it. Then you will be justified in expecting the rich who have more than they need to hand it over becuase you think it is only fair.

kwc57:

Sorry, I missed your post.
Thanks for the heads up.

I think you've confused me with a normal person.
Thanks again, hardly anyone I've ever met made that mistake.

I"m currently retired, and I haven't driven since 1995.
I've been in my 400 square foot apartment for 14 months now, and I've shared it with two homeless individuals, one for a period of five days.

Speaking as someone who has spent a fair amount of time living on the streets, I don't recommend giving the homeless a key to your house unless you have some first rate insurance. Many people who find themselves homeless have some very good reasons for being there.

Possibly, the richest 0.01% of Americans (approximately 10,000 earners) who "earn" an average of $50,000,000 per with assets of $350,000,000 per household might be interested in you challenge?

The next time you run into one, why don't you ask?

 

[georgephillip]

So no deficit reduction, keep spending trillions more then we have and to help offset it steal the money from those you think have to much. Thanks for proving the point of just how brain damaged you are.

Explain again how taking MORE percentage wise from people that happen to have more then you is A) Justified under the Constitution, B) reasonable behavior for a Government to do, And C) why you think those with more should pay a higher percentage based on some sense of fair play and reasonable conscious.

Noones ever beat my ass in a fight, and even if they did, I would not go cry to mommy "Government" to fix that problem, I would make sure it didn't happen again through my own means.

It's the America Dream, that's what people come here for, if progressives like yourself take that away, then why would it even be worth coming here? If you like the progressive style of government, move to France, we'll keep our style, and modify it back to the constitution.


It doesn't matter what you believe, change your tampon and buckle down and earn money, stop looking to government for it.

This is a damn war.
Why are you afraid to fight back?

Because we don't believe in fighting a war against honest Americans who create jobs and help grow the economy like you and berry and the rest of the communists in this country do. Now I agree that there are some crooked millionaires out there, but they make up the minority in the wealthy class, that's no excuse to punish all wealthy people by taking their money and giving it to the lazy and down trodden.

What part of the American Dream requires bribing corrupt politicians and central bankers for low tax and interest rates?
Do you know why it's called the American Dream?
Because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Wake up!

"Too big to fail" banks have now become "too big to save."
Google Iceland.

Bankers and the rich parasites they enable have decided they are not allowed to lose money anymore. That means you are required to make good all their gambling losses. If you're serious about never losing a fight, let's see how you match up against Wall Street.

Investment Banks are not through stealing.
They can't stop for the same reason sharks can't stop swimming.
They'll die.
Good riddance.

 

[boedicca]

Really, in my experience the division officer (in my case, the Lt. Cmdr. gave the orders and the Chief supervised the division. First Class and Second Class PO's implemented the division operations under direction and worked within their rate.

Other than boot camp and a few temp assignments I was at sea.

You'd think someone as allegedly intelligent as you are could tell the difference between the Navy and the Air Force.

Guess not.

The Air Force expects initiative and self-reliance from our Airmen. Does the Navy need their widdle hands held all the time?

It was. I spent about half my career in a cublicle. That's when I managed the billion-dollar fleet of equipment. The other stuff I did in the field.

But, hey, nice try at minimizing my service. Too bad reality doesn't agree with your arrogant prickery.

Of course you don't, now that I've shown your idiotic assertions to be stupid.

I have, and it is. Your problem with it is not that it's bad for the country, but that it's bad for the Democratic Party.

As a patriot you might consider how the avarice and bigotry and the callous disregard for other Americans which today's Republican Party advocates fits with the principles upon our nation was founded.

Did you know that the stereotypes and talking points you just spewed exist only in the minds of idiot leftists incapable of independent thought?

I hate to break it to you, but you're really a dumb person. No, really, you are. And every time you try to sound smart, it just totally fails. And there are few things more funny that a dumb person insisting he's smart.

As a know it all will you please explain to me how a policy which allowes for too little wealth to the many and too much to the few will work out? A flat tax in a decade will redistribute the wealth, simple math even someone who managed only millions should understand.

Explain the consequences of Citzens United v. FEC, does it really expand liberty and freedom? Explain why you think so, if you do? (if you do, why is the GOP pushing for tax cuts to corportions? If they have the rights of a person, shouldn't they pay the same rate?)

Just two of many questons which occur to me. And I'm a dumb leftist as you pointed out. I'm sure you can offer answers for my education.

You assume the pie is static.

That's a flawed premise.

 

[georgephillip]

It's SCARY to think we have people in this country who FEEL THIS WAY.

You couldn't get MORE DISGUSTING for calling to STEAL other people's money by TAXATION to use it for your own use.

but then again, this piece of crap posting came from the so called, "PROGRESSIVE (pretty name for COMMIE)" website, common dreams..

common dreams my ass..

What part of equal scares you most?

In 1979 when the richest 1% of Americans controlled 9% of US income they paid taxes at a rate of 70%. Today they pay taxes at half that rate EXCEPT when they pay at a 15% capital gains rate.

It's REALLY scary that slaves like you don't see how the rich have bribed government to lower their tax rates over the last 40 years.

Get some guts.
Fight back.
Fascist.

If you believe in equal, then you surely must believe that you are equally able to get out and earn that kind of money right? And don't be fooled, there is nothing equal to stealing what one person earned while turning a blind eye to another person.

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

Look back at 1979 when the richest 1% of Americans controlled 9% of total US income and paid taxes at double the 35% they pay today.(when they're not paying 15%) Compare the 9% of forty years ago to the 20% of total income they "earn" today.

That increase is not all due to increased effort.
A lot of it has to do with low tax rates and low interest rates.

"Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).

"This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole.

"This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

 

[boedicca]

What part of equal scares you most?

In 1979 when the richest 1% of Americans controlled 9% of US income they paid taxes at a rate of 70%. Today they pay taxes at half that rate EXCEPT when they pay at a 15% capital gains rate.

It's REALLY scary that slaves like you don't see how the rich have bribed government to lower their tax rates over the last 40 years.

Get some guts.
Fight back.
Fascist.

If you believe in equal, then you surely must believe that you are equally able to get out and earn that kind of money right? And don't be fooled, there is nothing equal to stealing what one person earned while turning a blind eye to another person.

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

Look back at 1979 when the richest 1% of Americans controlled 9% of total US income and paid taxes at double the 35% they pay today.(when they're not paying 15%) Compare the 9% of forty years ago to the 20% of total income they "earn" today.

That increase is not all due to increased effort.
A lot of it has to do with low tax rates and low interest rates.

"Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).

"This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole.

"This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

 

[Steelplate]

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)".

From, "Who Rules America" (up dated in Jan. 2011):

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

A bit of academic context to help frame the argument.

 

[theHawk]

Would you feel the same way if the government put the tax monies to work by funding a 21st Century version of the WPA, putting millions of unemployed Americans back to work rebuilding infrastructure?

High speed rail?

Universal fiber optic internet?

What is our government doing to help the people of Afghanistan?
Besides boosting poppy production.

Using tax money to pay for "unemployed" to work on high speed rail and "universal fiber optic internet" (whatever the **** that is) isn't going to work, and it isn't going to solve the unemployment problem.
You assume that all unemployed people will a) have the skills to perform the project funded by the government and b) the unemployed will move to the location it is being done at.

If there is a real need and demand for things like high speed rail then let a private company do it, otherwise its just government subsidy for something that can't sustain itself.

Government doesn't need to do anything for "fiber optic internet", Telco companies are already investing in that infrastructure and its being paid for by consumers because there is demand there. Absolutely no reason to have government play a middleman by collecting taxes from consumers and then hiring people to do what the Telcos are already doing.

I have no idea what our "government" is doing to help the people of Afghanistan, I just know our military are there to provide security and stability by finding terrorists and killing/capturing them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Would you feel the same way if the government put the tax monies to work by funding a 21st Century version of the WPA, putting millions of unemployed Americans back to work rebuilding infrastructure?

High speed rail?

Universal fiber optic internet?

What is our government doing to help the people of Afghanistan?
Besides boosting poppy production.

Using tax money to pay for "unemployed" to work on high speed rail and "universal fiber optic internet" (whatever the **** that is) isn't going to work, and it isn't going to solve the unemployment problem.
You assume that all unemployed people will a) have the skills to perform the project funded by the government and b) the unemployed will move to the location it is being done at.

If there is a real need and demand for things like high speed rail then let a private company do it, otherwise its just government subsidy for something that can't sustain itself.

Government doesn't need to do anything for "fiber optic internet", Telco companies are already investing in that infrastructure and its being paid for by consumers because there is demand there. Absolutely no reason to have government play a middleman by collecting taxes from consumers and then hiring people to do what the Telcos are already doing.

I have no idea what our "government" is doing to help the people of Afghanistan, I just know our military are there to provide security and stability by finding terrorists and killing/capturing them.

Many unemployed Americans were skilled workers whose jobs were exported overseas, others were let go do to the economic slow down and suggesting Americans are unskilled is absurd. Anyone who knows a bit of our history learned how women who had never been employed in industry built ships, planes, tanks and other weapons during WWII.

Suggesting a Michigan welder who built cars or a steel worker who build sky scrapers can't lay rail or build locomotives, string wire or learn any of the hundreds of jobs needed to rebuild our nations infrastructure is slinging bullshit.

If Telcos are doing anything it sure hasn't impacted unemployment, get real.

 

[georgephillip]

Well, if you DON'T BELIEVE the rich have EARNED all that money, you could call Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a few others who are the RICHEST Democrat Representatives, AND ASK THEM.
You are showing your Liberal Red my dear.

From the OP:

"The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds..."

There is no shortage of millionaires in the US Congress.
On both sides of the aisle.

My solution is to FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats from DC by the hundreds (starting in the White House) in November of 2012.

What's yours?

So how does flushing politicians from washington and taxing the ass off of a business owner who makes millions a year the same thing?

Republicans AND Democrats are wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street.
Both parties depend on the richest 1% of Americans to fund their campaigns.
Few in either party will hesitate to bail out Wall Street in the next financial crisis.

Since most Republicans are more conservative than most Democrats, I'm suggesting the GOP hang back and vote normally in 2012 while Democrats FLUSH a hundred (or more) of their incumbents from DC starting with Wall Street's puppet in the White House.

Since the Dems would be on point on this one, it seems only fair to replace the Democrats with 90 Greens and 10 Libertarians.

If this were to happen, you would see some honest-to-god socialists in congress.
Socialists who would have began health care reform by removing three words from the original 1965 Medicare Act:

Citizens over sixty-five
Would have become
Citizens.

Some of you cons may actually believe Obama is a socialist.
He's not, but you could very well meet some real soon.
Think of it as the second shot heard 'round the world.

 

[skookerasbil]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

c'mon........Common Dreams s0n??!!!!!


Alexa.com rates popularity of all websites on the internet - over 250 million of them. They use a combination of the number of 'users' and 'page views' over a 3-month period to calculate website popularity (Click here to see Alexa's Global Top 500).

Here's how the top 25 progressive websites rank:
Progressive Ranking Website Alexa Ranking

1 CommonDreams.org 5,014
2 Village Voice 5,362
3 AirAmericaRadio.com 5,697
4 DemocraticUnderground.com 6,181
5 MichaelMoore.com 7,002
6 Daily Kos 7,803
7 CounterPunch.org 9,147
8 TruthOut.org 10,343
9 The Nation 11,750
10 MoveOn.org 10,874
11 Fahrenheit 9/11 12,202
12 AlterNet.org 11,395
13 Amnesty International 13,663
14 Planet Out 13,621
15 BuzzFlash.com 13,149
16 ZNet/ZMagazine 14,735
17 Doonesbury 19,291
18 Washington Monthly 19,317
19 Center for American Progress 21,073
20 Human Rights Watch 21,418
21 DemocracyNow! 21,629
22 WorkingforChange.com 21,766
23 Greenpeace 24,538
24 TomPaine.com 25,159
25 MotherJones.com 26,558

Which are the Most Popular Progressive Websites?



George Phillip is a fcukking imposter...............

###


gay

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look back at 1979 when the richest 1% of Americans controlled 9% of total US income and paid taxes at double the 35% they pay today.(when they're not paying 15%) Compare the 9% of forty years ago to the 20% of total income they "earn" today.

That increase is not all due to increased effort.
A lot of it has to do with low tax rates and low interest rates.

No such animal as US income. There is income of Americans. Income which you somehow feel you have the right to confiscate.

What percentage of total income taxes did the rich pay back when you were enjoying the performance of Jimmy Carter? What percentage of the total are they paying now?

 

[georgephillip]

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

Let's ask Robert Reich and Cato Institute Fellow Alan Reynolds what they think:

"Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today’s tax code. Wrong.

"My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million...

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.

"Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)

"Reynolds entirely ignores my central argument, which is that rather than depress economic growth, higher taxes on the rich correlate with higher growth.

"During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 percent and 91 percent, average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent."

Robert Reich

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

 

[theHawk]

Many unemployed Americans were skilled workers whose jobs were exported overseas, others were let go do to the economic slow down and suggesting Americans are unskilled is absurd. Anyone who knows a bit of our history learned how women who had never been employed in industry built ships, planes, tanks and other weapons during WWII.

Suggesting a Michigan welder who built cars or a steel worker who build sky scrapers can't lay rail or build locomotives, string wire or learn any of the hundreds of jobs needed to rebuild our nations infrastructure is slinging bullshit.

If Telcos are doing anything it sure hasn't impacted unemployment, get real.

I never suggested any of those things.

And I never suggested the Telcos are doing anything to "impact unemployment". Upgrading infrastructure is a slow process, there is no reason for Telcos to hire a mass amount of people for a short amount of time.

 

[georgephillip]

If its a war, why dont you do the honorable thing and get a gun and take the money you think is yours, instead of being a chickenshit coward and using the government to get it ?

Go to the ******* barracades for it, I dare you.

Guns are for pussies.
Possibly that explains your suggestion?

Why would you think one more gun in a country with more guns than citizens is likely to improve the situation?

It will be the rich who hire killers when enough of their political handmaidens are FLUSHED from government.

Which side will you fight on?

The Patriots side, and through the ballot by electing more Tea Party members in.

Would that be the "business as usual" tea party candidates?

"Faster than you can say 'business as usual,' freshman Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have begun to execute Wall Street's agenda."

Any Republican or Democrat who defies Wall Street will find herself facing a very well-funded challenger in her next primary.

Republicans AND Democrats have to FLUSHED from DC by the hundreds for anything of substance to change.

Tea Party Rebels Quickly Tamed | Truthout

 

[skookerasbil]

Guns are for pussies.
Possibly that explains your suggestion?

Why would you think one more gun in a country with more guns than citizens is likely to improve the situation?

It will be the rich who hire killers when enough of their political handmaidens are FLUSHED from government.

Which side will you fight on?

The Patriots side, and through the ballot by electing more Tea Party members in.

Would that be the "business as usual" tea party candidates?

"Faster than you can say 'business as usual,' freshman Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have begun to execute Wall Street's agenda."

Any Republican or Democrat who defies Wall Street will find herself facing a very well-funded challenger in her next primary.

Republicans AND Democrats have to FLUSHED from DC by the hundreds for anything of substance to change.

Tea Party Rebels Quickly Tamed | Truthout

Truthout = gay........#8 on the top progressive blogs..........