Tax the rich, lose the rich

[Shogun]

sure it does. You assume that individuals are the sum total influence in their personal income. You can't deny that opportunity is starkly limited in Ethiopia like you can when ignoring the reality of a starved middle class in America. Feel free to either admit you are wrong or dance around the facts some more.

I did previously admit that the playing field is not even for everyone. And indeed quite up hill for the avg. Ethiopian I would imagine. But we're not talking about Ethiopia. We're talking about America. The middle class is not starving in America. Hell be current statistical measurements i would be considered poor on my salary. Making it even more amazing what I am able to afford even though I am technically 'poor'. Yes there is some middle ground. But you seem to believe exactly as I said that where people wind up financially as all about fate and that individuals can't possibly be responsible for the position they find themselves in life. The fact is all it takes is some simple observation of the people around you. If you aren't motivated to do what it takes to become more than a phone rep. then you have no right to expect that you'll be more than that and make more than the pay said skill set deserves.

Indeed, those beggars on the streets of calcutta probably have no idea where their own bootstraps are too, RIGHT BERN?

Don't know, don't care. YOU are whining about the plight of people in this country. Stay on subject.

1. In Ethiopia OR America the economic fact simply isn't a matter of one's own ability to achieve and raise themselves up by their bootstraps. It's funny that you can admit this about one but not the other when the same range of external forces apply to both. For example, former factory workers in America are not, themselves, responsible for the absolute jettison of manufacturing to places like China and India. Nor are all those call centers that cater to American consumers, which directly limit employment opportunity HERE, the product of a lack of effort by the middle class. If you can't admit that Americans are economically stunted just because "they are not starving" then you are simply being disingenuous. Motivation or not, if the opportunity isn't available because the American standard of living can't compete with third world dirt class paupers then you really have nothing to add when predicting my mention of Calcutta.

2. "Don't know, don't care"

well, at least you are honest about ONE thing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They lower the cost of IT sector and telecomunication services, like your internet and cable or satellite TV.

That's funny. Really funny. The cost of both of those (cable and internet) has gone up about 40% since I've had the service (4 years). Nice try, though.

You in NY?

If yes, you are lying.

Cable and internet prices have plummeted opver the last 4 years.

Not in Brooklyn. The advertised price for the last 4 years has been the internet-cable-phone combo for $100 a month. Then it became $100 a month for the first 6 months, then $120 a month. Then they cut channels off the package, with additional charges for those channels that used to be included.

My cable/internet bill now is over a $100 a month, even after I dropped the phone line.

 

[daveman]

yea bern.. go tell that to all those starving humans in Ethiopia who, apparently, just need to learn where their own bootstraps are located.

How much of your own money are you sending them?

clearly you missed my point in regard to what I replied to. It doesn't shock me that you miss nuance like a fat chick walking a tightrope.

Once again, leftists define "horseshit" as "nuance".

 

[boedicca]

Even with prices at those levels, communications are a bargain.

Think of all the variety of content you now have compared to the days of the 3 major networks, one local station, and an analog telephone.

If you really want to see price competition, get rid of cities giving franchise rights to specific companies - and then feeding off the high taxes they tack onto the bills.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Even with prices at those levels, communications are a bargain.

Think of all the variety of content you now have compared to the days of the 3 major networks, one local station, and an analog telephone.

If you really want to see price competition, get rid of cities giving franchise rights to specific companies - and then feeding off the high taxes they tack onto the bills.

I agree with this completely.

I guess there is something that we can agree on.

 

[Shogun]

How much of your own money are you sending them?

clearly you missed my point in regard to what I replied to. It doesn't shock me that you miss nuance like a fat chick walking a tightrope.

Once again, leftists define "horseshit" as "nuance".

Feel free to refer to the statement I quoted and replied to while you look for a way to keep your sagging man-titties off of your keyboard.

 

[daveman]

"History" has shown nothing, there has never been a "Marxist" society on this planet, ever. Marxism is a utopian pipe dream, that has never occured. Just like laissez-faire capitalism. That's never worked either.

But that doesn't stop fools from wanting to try Marxism, insisting it'll work. Freedom is the human default mode. Any system that limits that freedom too much will fail. Ever single time.

We've already determined that you don't know what "Marxism" means. Tell me, how does "Marxism" limit freedom?

You're kidding, right?

Under Marxism, "In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve."

No private property. No opportunity to amass wealth through hard work. Individual lives don't matter; the collective is all.

There is no freedom at all under Marxism, either the textbook kind that's never been practiced, or the oligarchical kind that has been tried and failed.

Show me a single post that advocates shutting down fox news by a non-troll poster.

You really think there aren't people here who want Fox shut down?

But here's a group of people who think it should be shut down.

I did say "on this board".

That's true. Do you really think there aren't people here who want Fox shut down?

 

[drsmith1072]

GDP growth for Q2 has been revised downward to 2.6%.

At this point after the 1981 recession, we had growth rates of double to more than triple that level.

The proof is in the GDP Growth Pudding. Obamanomics is an Epic Fail.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense, economic literacy, and historical perspective knows: the more you tax something, the less of it you get; the more you subsidize something, the more of it you get.

Obamanomics subsidizes Big Government and taxes productivity. That's why unemployment is at unprecedentedly high levels for this stage of what is supposed to be an economic recover.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy Double Dip.

Oh and (sarcasm coming) I am certain that it couldn't have anything to do with the republicans blocking and obstructing anything and everything including tax cuts for small businesses and extending unemployment benefits now could it?? It couldn't be because they would rather maintain the status quo in the hopes that the flatlining economy which has bene directly impacted by their obstruction will benefit them in the upcoming election now could it??

As usual with the republican hacks and their lemming lap dogs who are willfully ill-informed it is party first and the end justifies the means.

I just love how morons parrot the bs about taxes and yet when asked for substance about how obama did anything to impact their taxes negatively they become mute on the subject or just parrot the same lame claims over and over again.

The Democrats have controlled Congress for 4 years. Obama has been in the White House nearly two years. For most of the last two years Democrats have had solid majorities--nearly filibuster proof.
And the poor economy is the fault of the GOP??
The Republicans must be wizards if they can figure out a way to stop legislation when the Democrats hold the cards. And teh Democrats must be dumb as dirt not to be able to get their own legislation passed.
And DrSmith must not be the sharpest tool in the shed if he really believes this.

WOW look at the spin and willfull ignorance. based on your completely moronic arguments I am not sure that you know how the system in congress works.

Nearly filibuster proof isn't nearly good enough when you have one party holding the country hostage so they can maintain the staus quo in the hopes that they can gain in the upcoming election as they play on the fears of Americans as they have always done.

The fact that the republicans have obstructed damn near everything or stalled it until it's affects were limited and based on where all of this began, YEAH I would say that the republicans share a good portion of the blame. Notice how I said PORTION and am not only blaming the right as you dishonestly tried to do. Unlike you I am honest and will blame my party when they deserve it and criticize them when they deserve it. It just too bad for you that you lack the integrity to do the same you partisan hack.

BTW none of your spin changes the FACT that your thread is based on BS opinions that you own article doesn't support with anything REAL.

 

[daveman]

The closest thing in modern times to a worker's society as leftist philosophies dictate(d) would be parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. It didn't last long.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

You vote Democrat then?

Used to. Don't any more. I grew out of it.

Because the Anarchist-Marxist-leftist society that failed, didn't fail because of their own policies.

They failed because Stalin and the Soviet Union, as well as the government of the Spanish Republic actively worked against it.

Ahhh. So you're one of the "Sure, it's never worked before, but that's only because it never had a fair shot! I'm SURE it'll work this time!" crowd?

 

[daveman]

The closest thing in modern times to a worker's society as leftist philosophies dictate(d) would be parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. It didn't last long.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Funny coming from the party that hates history so much they try to rewrite it all the time

Uh huh.

 

[daveman]

clearly you missed my point in regard to what I replied to. It doesn't shock me that you miss nuance like a fat chick walking a tightrope.

Once again, leftists define "horseshit" as "nuance".

Feel free to refer to the statement I quoted and replied to while you look for a way to keep your sagging man-titties off of your keyboard.

You make a compelling case. I'm THIS close to registering Democrat!

 

[Woyzeck]

Because the Anarchist-Marxist-leftist society that failed, didn't fail because of their own policies.

They failed because Stalin and the Soviet Union, as well as the government of the Spanish Republic actively worked against it.

Ahhh. So you're one of the "Sure, it's never worked before, but that's only because it never had a fair shot! I'm SURE it'll work this time!" crowd?

Ahhh, so you're one of the "I'm going to misconstrue everything my opponent says so I don't have to actually meaningful debate my own ideas" crowd? Because I haven't said anything about whether I think it would work or not in this thread. I simply stated that the leftist society during the Spanish Civil came to an end because of the Soviets and Republican government working against it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But that doesn't stop fools from wanting to try Marxism, insisting it'll work. Freedom is the human default mode. Any system that limits that freedom too much will fail. Ever single time.

We've already determined that you don't know what "Marxism" means. Tell me, how does "Marxism" limit freedom?

You're kidding, right?

Under Marxism, "In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve."

No private property. No opportunity to amass wealth through hard work. Individual lives don't matter; the collective is all.

There is no freedom at all under Marxism, either the textbook kind that's never been practiced, or the oligarchical kind that has been tried and failed.

You really think there aren't people here who want Fox shut down?

But here's a group of people who think it should be shut down.

I did say "on this board".

That's true. Do you really think there aren't people here who want Fox shut down?

"Private Property" does NOT equal "Freedom", no matter how much the Heritage Foundation says so.

"Freedom" means the ability to make your own choices. Marxism is closer to anarchy than anything else, with minimal government. I thought "Less government" = "Freedom".

It's one or the other.

 

[The Rabbi]

From your own article




So the claim that they are RICH and are leaving the country for tax purposes is a little less than honest don't you think?? Especially since the article itself counters that claim.

Thanks for the "worthless opinon presented as fact post".

So you mischaracterize what I wrote and then proceed to try to say that is false? Nice work if you can get it.
In fact the article makes two things clear: the number of people renouncing citizenship has doubled and will continue to increase. The number of people leaving to preserve their wealth is increasing.
Doubtless you will again misconstrue what I wrote, try to show it was wrong, and call me names.

What was mischaracterized HACK?? You make the claim and the fail completely to support it, not that I wonder why but it would be nice if you could provide some substance for a change.

Yeah the article makes it clear that it has TRIPLED from 08 to 09 (do you even read what you cut and paste??) but it doesn't show anything of substance to support that they are leaving due to taxes. In fact it shows that Many of those leaving the U.S. behind have dual nationality and may not have lived in the country for years. Others have lived overseas for so long that America no longer feels like home.

As to your second claim yeah the OPINION that you linked to does make the CLAIM that the number of people leaving to preserve their wealth is increasing but it provided NOTHING of substance to support that OPINION.

BTW In this post I quoted the article and was talking about ITS content, so unless you wrote it then STFU moron. LOL However, even then my argument is spot on and the FACT is that the article that you linked to offers nothing to support it's conclusion that "the growing unease about the Obama administration's taxation policies among the wealthy" is the reason that these people are leaving.

Got any more BS spin?

Wow are you dumb. Who said everyone who leaves does so for tax reasons? Of course there are lots of reasons. But at least some of them are doing so for wealth preservation, and an increasing number so.
All of that is supported by the article. Too bad you're too dumb to understand that.

 

[drsmith1072]

yes, if only we could have etended unemployment benefits sooner, that would have really spurred the economy. according to nancy pelosi, unemployment benefits are the fastest way to create jobs. if that were the case, shouldn't we be at amuch lower unemployment rate right now?

the fact remains that democrats are unwilling to acknowledge that it is their Healthcare Bill, their Financial Reform and their threat of increasing taxes that have led companies to sit on $2 trillion in cash rather than hiring. Of course, in your mind, the only reason they are doing this is because they're greedy.

I gave a few examples of how republicans were obstructing I am so sorry that I didn't spell that out so even an infant could understand it. I will try not to make that mistake again in the future and be sure to present it at a level based on my audience. LOL

BTW that isn't a fact that is only you OPINION. don't you think it's time that you learned there is a difference??

However, the FACT is that the job creators have had the benefit and motivation of bush's taxcuts for years and have laid people off and cut jobs even as they and the right demand more taxcuts to spur growth and allow for more job creation. They haven't followed through in the past so why should we believe that they will do so NOW?

Furthermore, I have seen the greed where the board and higher ups at a company get pay raises BECAUSE they saved money by laying people off. This is reality, you can keep your works of fiction based delusion where all companies "do the right thing" but the thing is that reality is much much colder and far more harsh.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Yeah it would be nice if such a fictional world worked with reality but the reality, that most of the right continues to ignore, is the fact that the job creators have been allowed to have their capital but they haven't created jobs with it. Why is it that you continue to ignore this FACT?

Bush's tax cuts are still in effect and have been this whole time and yet where are the jobs?? Why should we give MORE or even extend the taxcuts to get them to create jobs if they haven't done so already?? They had the motivation to do so and chose not to and now the right is arguing that we should allow them to keep the motivation in the HOPES that they will do what they said they would do when they got the motivation the first time around.

We are in a recession.
We were told that our cost to employ is going up due to healthcare reform.
We are in a recession.
We are told that our taxes are going up due to the tax cut roll backs.
We are in a recession.

Example....real example...

I own a small business.
I made good money up until 2 years ago.
My house value went down so I can not count on capital from my house.
I have not laid off.
Business is slow (recession).
I take home less now than one of my employees as I did not lower her salary...I opted to take less home.
I was told that my cost to employ is going up due to healthcare.
I will NOT lower her salary or anyone elses in my empoly, so if business does not pick up I will take home even less than I am now making it real tight.
I am now going to have my taxes raised...giving me even LESS to take home.
Business is still slow.
Taking even less home may put me in a position to have to lay off so I can meet my bills.
If I dont meet my bills, I go bankrupt and ALL of my employees lose their jobs.

So call it what you want. Call me evil. Tell me I hate the working class.

Say whatever you want.

You tell me excactly what I should do?

If your business provides goods or services, you should call your Senators and Congressman and demand they extend unemployment insurance. The economy's fundamental problem is a "demand deficit." There is less economic demand for products and services than the ability we have to produce them. Every dollar of spending on unemployment benefits increases overall economic growth by $1.61. That's because people who get unemployment benefits need to spend the money, and the people who receive it from them spend it as well, and so on. Tax cuts for the wealthy return $0.34 for every dollar spent or not collected as revenue.

IF you run your business based on your taxes, then you are not a smart businessman. You will expand or contract based on the market, NOT on if your taxes go up 3.6%.

 

[Shogun]

Once again, leftists define "horseshit" as "nuance".

Feel free to refer to the statement I quoted and replied to while you look for a way to keep your sagging man-titties off of your keyboard.

You make a compelling case. I'm THIS close to registering Democrat!

Did you just hold up your fingers 4mm apart after checking for accurate length against your penis??

 

[daveman]

Because the Anarchist-Marxist-leftist society that failed, didn't fail because of their own policies.

They failed because Stalin and the Soviet Union, as well as the government of the Spanish Republic actively worked against it.

Ahhh. So you're one of the "Sure, it's never worked before, but that's only because it never had a fair shot! I'm SURE it'll work this time!" crowd?

Ahhh, so you're one of the "I'm going to misconstrue everything my opponent says so I don't have to actually meaningful debate my own ideas" crowd? Because I haven't said anything about whether I think it would work or not in this thread. I simply stated that the leftist society during the Spanish Civil came to an end because of the Soviets and Republican government working against it.

Fair enough. My apologies.

 

[drsmith1072]

so here we are in 2010. who is being held down today?

What you choose to do in your bedroom is none of my business. Please, keep it to yourself. LOL

 

[daveman]

"Private Property" does NOT equal "Freedom", no matter how much the Heritage Foundation says so.

Yes, private property does indeed equal freedom.

"Freedom" means the ability to make your own choices. Marxism is closer to anarchy than anything else, with minimal government. I thought "Less government" = "Freedom".

It's one or the other.

What choices is the collective going to allow you to have?