Tax the rich, lose the rich

[Jarhead]

Jarhead go read the first 8 words of bern80's post that you said Yeap to

I said yep to the second half of his post...and anyone reading my response would realize that becuase my post addressed the SECOND HALF of his post.

Whatever.....

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Sadly, you fell for the rhetoric.

Any idea how many corporations there are in America?

Any idea how many were part of that "useless war" you speak of?

Yet you group all of corporate America together.

Why?

I didn't lump all of corporate America togther, now did I? I am really wishing, though, that those who call themselves "conservative" put to rest that deceptive moniker and call themselves what they really are, which is "corporatist". That's what that is about.

I would say there are thousands of "contractors" who sprang up along with the MIC 2.0. Interestingly, I can't find an exact count of all the corporations. This is an interesting accounting.

Military Industrial Complex 2.0 | NewAmerica.net

 

[Jarhead]

These people KNOW this country will fail without a healthy middle class.

They are correct......the country will fail without a healthy middle class.

I believe they are wrong as to how to acheive it.

How is going futher into debt to save the rich going to build a middle class?

I do not see it as you see it.
You see it as saving the rich.
I see it as allwoing the job creators to have the capital TO CREATE JOBS.
Once we start creating jobs, we have an increase in tax revenue. Once we have an increase in tax revenue, we start working on our debt.

 

[midcan5]

Note to liberals:

Eventually, you run out of other people's money to be generous with.

Not true.

"Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in...."

"Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." George Carlin

 

[Truthmatters]

JH, That is trickle down shit and it has never worked in the past so why do you think it would work now?

 

[Shogun]

There are many just like you who are not republicans.

There are even some of the 1 percent who are not republicans.

Why do you pretend they are all republicans?

Exactlky where did I say they were all republicans?

What is with you and your "republican vs democrat" crap?

Soros is a great success. I admire him. He is a liberal, but I admire how he acheived great success.

I dont get it with you and your partisan crap. Dont you get it? This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with a vision. I dont care what party you vote for. You can always have the same vision as I had. It has nothing to do with politics.

Jeez....you are so frustrating to debate with. You always go back to partisanship.

Give it a rest.

As I eluded to, it is class envy. It really is that people like righty and Truth just don't get it. Studies have actually been done about how people become wealthy. The FACT is most of them don't come from money. They are highly motivated and generally extremely frugal with their money.

Back atcha, Bern. You seem to think that a spectrum of relative wealth REQUIRES greedy bastards in the US. It doesn't. Feel free to lament about envy after taking your toys and leaving the US for the very third world that your kind must abuse in order to prop themselves up. I'm sure, uh, they won't get tired of it eventually either.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Bin Laden started the war--ever read his declaration?

Bin Laden started the Iraq war??? Wow, I missed that memo...

 

[Shogun]

Note to liberals:

Eventually, you run out of other people's money to be generous with.

Note to con$ervative corporatists:

You started a useless war (ironically, for profit) with "other people's" money and then proceeded to "lose" what, 12 billion of that? Pay that back and then we'll talk about spending "other people's money". China is waiting for the mortgage payment, by the way...

Bin Laden started the war--ever read his declaration?

Did it begin with, "Here I am! Over here in Iraq!"?

 

[Shogun]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


jarhead outs himself for just what i claimed he was saying.

indeed.

 

[cad]

You need to demonstrate that. I will admit a few sports figures started at the bottom, but they are exceptions. I know a fair number of well to do people, and most inherited enough to get them started. A few inherited all of it, others married into money, or work an occupation that pays very well. None of these people started with nothing - all had the benefits of a upper middle class life style and the perks it brings. Having the luck to get richer doesn't mean you started from nothing. The Waltons sure as hell didn't start with nothing, same with Gates et al.

There is nothing wrong with this but please don't believe the rich make jobs, they do not, unless the investment loonies count as real jobs. The rich enjoy living in a society that provides the infrastructure, technology, and people power to live well. Aside from the illegal who mows the lawn or the Bentley mechanic changing their oil these are hardly peaches and cream dream jobs.

Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, larry Ellison, steve ballmer, sheldon adelson, kirk kerkorian, sergey brin, larry page, oprah winfrey, the list goes on and on. Did all these people come from absolute abject poverty? probably not, but that's beside the point. the walton's today came from money, how wealthy was sam walton when he was 10 years old? how can you claim the rich don't make jobs? who is responsible for the thousands of jobs at microsoft if it isn't paul allen and bill gates? who would be working at dell if it weren't for michael dell? in your mind, the only jobs michael dell created were his butlers and gardners? really?

 

[daveman]

Sadly, you fell for the rhetoric.

Any idea how many corporations there are in America?

Any idea how many were part of that "useless war" you speak of?

Yet you group all of corporate America together.

Why?

I didn't lump all of corporate America togther, now did I? I am really wishing, though, that those who call themselves "conservative" put to rest that deceptive moniker and call themselves what they really are, which is "corporatist". That's what that is about.

They might, just as soon as "progressives" drop that false label and call themselves what they really are, which is "Marxists".

 

[Truthmatters]

Jarhead go read the first 8 words of bern80's post that you said Yeap to

I said yep to the second half of his post...and anyone reading my response would realize that becuase my post addressed the SECOND HALF of his post.

Whatever.....

You were busted and you want out now.

To bad you made NO distinction as to which part you agreed with.

You yourself claimed the EVIL 5% bullshit.

 

[drsmith1072]

I, for one, feel sorry for the wealthy. They do so much for this country and ask for so little in return. I would like to continue giving them their tax cut, but we just can't afford it this year.
You see, the Tea Party reminded me that we are running this massive deficit and we really need to cut back on things that add to the defecit. Since this tax cut has added $2 Trillion we need to cut it out temporarily until we are on better financial footing.

I promise that once the wealthy stop sending our jobs overseas, and once that $13 trillion in debt is paid off.....they can have their tax cut back

Seems fair

do you want to get rid of all the bush tax cuts, or just those that affect the wealthiest americans? how is raising everyone's taxes going to help out this economy? did you ever think that one of the reasons "the wealthy send our jobs overseas" is because the US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

If the money is applied to the deficit, I am willing to give up my entire Bush tax cut

We tried that "tinkle down" nonsense

The rich kept the money and sent jobs overseas. That is why the percentage of wealth held by the rich is expanding while the standard of living for the working class is diminishing

EXACTLY. Why continue to give them something they claim they will use for job creation when they have shown that they instead choose to pocket it and refuse to "act as the dynamic force in our economy."

Greed is good and wallstreet 2 is coming out which is basically porn to these greedy bastards and I am sure that they can't wait to hear their next sermon so they can feel justified that they haven't done what they said they would with the last round of taxcuts. lol Why repeat the same proccess over and voer again and expect a different result?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I do not see it as you see it.
You see it as saving the rich.
I see it as allwoing the job creators to have the capital TO CREATE JOBS.

The problem is, what YOU are not seeing is that THEY ARE NOT CREATING JOBS WITH IT - they obviously have the capital - 80% of the wealth is in their posession. The fact is, they are shipping more and more jobs overseas to increase profits by exploiting slave labor and no environmental reguation. Now they have higher profits and lower taxes and they are becoming richer and richer faster and faster while the rest of us are drowning - they had Bush's tax cuts for almost a decade. WHERE ARE THE JOBS???

 

[rightwinger]

Abraham Lincoln said it best!:

1)You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich

2) You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

3) You can't bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift

4) You can't lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down

5) You can't (promote) the brotherhood of many by inciting class hatred

6) You can't build character and courage by taking away a mans initiative and independence

7) You can't help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves


These are the principles we must all remember when heading to the polls in november, and in the next presidential election.

The liberal/progressive agenda will destroy the very foundation of this country. That agenda must be attacked and destroyed.

Haven't we been through this a dozen times already?

Abe Lincoln never said that

He should have----do you have a problem with any of those principles ?

I will respond to Rev Boetcker who actually said it

These are definitely worthy values but are one sided. They look at the economy from a standpoint of the wealthy lifting up the poor rather than the poor providing labor that the wealthy turns into profit.

You need to keep both sides of the equation satisfied. You can't continually support the rich while denying a decent standard of living to those making them rich.

1) Helping the poor does not destroy the rich. You can actually help both at the same time. Equitable distribution of available wealth does not "destroy" the rich. They will still be rich and their workers will have a higher standard of living

2) Strengthening the weak does not weaken the strong

3) Thrift and prosperity do not always go hand in hand. A thriving economy needs people spending money on goods and services

4) see 1)

5) Agree......but class hatred goes in both directions. Look at the class hatred directed at the poor

6) Agree...but you must also fairly compensate initiative and independence. Otherwise you will lose it

7) True...but a modern society also needs to look after those who can't look out for themselves

 

[Mr. Peepers]

They might, just as soon as "progressives" drop that false label and call themselves what they really are, which is "Marxists".

But that wouldn't make any sense because it isn't true. You need to learn what a Marxist is before you go flinging that around.

 

[daveman]

Note to liberals:

Eventually, you run out of other people's money to be generous with.

Not true.

"Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in...."

"Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." George Carlin

Code words for taking from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

Funny how you call that "fairness".

 

[daveman]

They might, just as soon as "progressives" drop that false label and call themselves what they really are, which is "Marxists".

But that wouldn't make any sense because it isn't true. You need to learn what a Marxist is before you go flinging that around.

Of course it's true. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's false.

 

[Jarhead]

I do not see it as you see it.
You see it as saving the rich.
I see it as allwoing the job creators to have the capital TO CREATE JOBS.

The problem is, what YOU are not seeing is that THEY ARE NOT CREATING JOBS WITH IT - they obviously have the capital - 80% of the wealth is in their posession. The fact is, they are shipping more and more jobs overseas to increase profits by exploiting slave labor and no environmental reguation. Now they have higher profits and lower taxes and they are becoming richer and richer faster and faster while the rest of us are drowning - they had Bush's tax cuts for almost a decade. WHERE ARE THE JOBS???

They?
Yes, there are some shipping jobs overseas. SOME. NOT ALL. But you tell me...exactly how do you think countries overseas will react if we pulled all of our jobs back here? You think Japan will keep their plants open here or bring their jobs back to Japan to make up for the lost jobs?

Where are the jobs?

We were in a recession. It was expected. Some jobs are lost in a recesssion. But then, as is expected, one of the candidates decided to play in it and call it the beginnig of a depression...that was to get votes. But it did more. IT SCARED THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLE. So they started to lay off out of fear. Then it spiraled.

Then came the stimulus. What does a stimulus do? It gives people reason to be reactive not pro-active. So people sat around and waited for it to kick in. Less people spending, more layoffs. It never really kicked in....still waiting.

Then came the health care bill. What did that do? Told employers the cost of each employee will be going up. MORE reason to not want to hire.

Then came the threat of losing the tax cuts. MORE REASON not to hire.

Thats where the jobs are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They might, just as soon as "progressives" drop that false label and call themselves what they really are, which is "Marxists".

But that wouldn't make any sense because it isn't true. You need to learn what a Marxist is before you go flinging that around.

Of course it's true. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's false.

I love how people "know" what other people are really thinking.

Define "Marxism", if you're so sure that you "know".