The top 1% get 93% of income growth: Bloomberg

[Rshermr]

Uh-huh....But here you are pimping your heart out for the moocher class, while pumping forth the standard leftloon drivel about how corporations are ******* up the whole world and, by extension, how turning the entire electoral process over to the ruling class will somehow ameliorate that situation..

It looks to me like you flunked the class on non sequitur, dickweed.

So, you are a typical con. You believe people are basically bad. And, having spent enough time in bat shit crazy con web sites, you have been told who is bad, and why. So, good deal. That is what makes cons happy. Being told what to believe and who to be angry at. Which makes you a typical con consumer of the drivel that makes you happy.
Do you ever have any proof of anything that you say? Sorry, stupid question.

No, my beliefs on human nature are quite accurately described by Frédéric Bastiat, in his book The Law....Short form being people aren't inherently bad, but become so when rewarded for being so.

You, OTOH, are a prime pimp and cheerleader for the plunderers, who reward sloth, indolence and greed.

Better you than me.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

 

[Oddball]

It's an opinion based upon observation.

You blame the shopkeepers for the protection racketeers.

 

[Rshermr]

It's an opinion based upon observation.

You blame the shopkeepers for the protection racketeers.

No, I don't. that is a stupid statement. And, based on my observation of that statement, oddball, I would say that is evidence that your opinion is less than valuable.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, yes you do...Then you claim that the only way to protect us from the evil shopkeepers is to turn everything over to the racketeers.

Talk about worthless opinions.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, yes you do...Then you claim that the only way to protect us from the evil shopkeepers is to turn everything over to the racketeers.

Talk about worthless opinions.

Perhaps you would like to show where I said that. Or would you rather just admit you are lying?

 

[Oddball]

Post #39...It was just put up there this morning.

Having problems with short-term memory?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now he's only submitting to most of it. The tail chase is like every other.

 

[Rshermr]

Post #39...It was just put up there this morning.

Having problems with short-term memory?

So, oddball, you are equating me asking Step if he thought the problem with the economy was money in politics, with racketeering. You know, dipshit, money from corporations to fund politics and lobbiests.
So, that is your point??? Perhaps if you took your head out of your ass, you would make more sense.

 

[martybegan]

So, Martybean says:
Nope, beanj. Thinking other than anyone is great. But thinking produces opinions, not facts. And posting your opinions is a waste. There must be some evidence out there, you know, from actual impartial web sites. Should you ever frequent them.



Well, all of the well respected sources say you are being taxed less, regardless of what tax bracket you are in. When do you think you were taxed less?
What system is unsustainable? Until when?
Your opinion is your opinion. Any proof to anything you say???

You are complaining about opinions, on a message board?

Hows about you give me the "facts", as youcall them, that you are proclaiming?

OK. Some proof that your income tax rate is almost certainly lower today:
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

Federal Taxes At Lowest Rate Since 1950
Federal Taxes At Lowest Rate Since 1950
(this article by Bruce Bartlett, adviser to Ronald Reagan.)

Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years
FactCheck.org : Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years

There are hundreds more, should you care to see them. If you can read, you can check out the info yourself. If you need more, let me know and I will educate you on using google.

Relative to opinions. Problem is, everyone has one. And they mean nothing. Kind of like sitting around a bar and talking smart. Probably something that you actually enjoy.

Taxes being low is a GOOD thing. The problem is the FACT that the budget is short by 1.3 trillion a year. Spending is the problem, not revenue. This is my opinion. It is your OPINION that raising taxes on rich people is the solution to this issue. The FACT is that raising taxes to the clintion level on those over 250k a year will raise $80 billion (out of a $1,300 billion deficit). The FACT is that EVERYONES taxes would have to go up to cover that deficit, even if you confiscate everyones income over $250k a year.

The fact that we pay low taxes now has no bearing on ones opinion of how taxes should be based on income. The FACT of your greed and desire to punish other people who make more than you is clear for all to see.

 

[Oddball]

Post #39...It was just put up there this morning.

Having problems with short-term memory?

So, oddball, you are equating me asking Step if he thought the problem with the economy was money in politics, with racketeering. You know, dipshit, money from corporations to fund politics and lobbiests.
So, that is your point??? Perhaps if you took your head out of your ass, you would make more sense.

Uh-huh...And you don't hold the racketeer politicians responsible at all...In fact, you propose that the cure will be putting the racketeering politicians completely in charge of whose political campaigns are worthy and whose aren't.

Speaking of getting one's head out of one's ass.

 

[Rshermr]

Post #39...It was just put up there this morning.

Having problems with short-term memory?

So, oddball, you are equating me asking Step if he thought the problem with the economy was money in politics, with racketeering. You know, dipshit, money from corporations to fund politics and lobbiests.
So, that is your point??? Perhaps if you took your head out of your ass, you would make more sense.

Uh-huh...And you don't hold the racketeer politicians responsible at all...In fact, you propose that the cure will be putting the racketeering politicians completely in charge of whose political campaigns are worthy and whose aren't.

Speaking of getting one's head out of one's ass.

Ah. The racketeers are the politicians. that is your idea. I do not disagree are dishonest, but when you say that the corporations are innocent, then I know you are truly full of shit. So, you think that the politicians are forcing the corporations, through their various PACs, to give them money??? And the nice corporations are giving them millions because the politicians are shaking them down??? Wow, you are a real con tool. That piece of bullshit just does not pass the giggle test, odd. Stupid as hell.

So, what do you suppose the politicians, who have some money, are shaking down corporations for money. Using what as leverage, dipshit. Get a clue. Your post is about the most ignorant one that I have seen for a bit. Congratulations on being the dipshit of the night.

 

[edthecynic]

It's an opinion based upon observation.

You blame the shopkeepers for the protection racketeers.

And you blame the puppets for the string pullers. So it's an observation based on opinion.


In any case you CON$ are ass backwards as usual.

 

[Rshermr]

So Martyb says:

Taxes being low is a GOOD thing.

S]
So, good, you took my education well. No thank you, I notice. But at least you now agree that taxes are low.

The problem is the FACT that the budget is short by 1.3 trillion a year. Spending is the problem, not revenue. This is my opinion.

Another opinion. It is indeed a problem. But not the problem. The problem is unemployment. And it is not just spending, it is mostly revenue. Because, primarily, unemployment is high causing a slowdown in tax revenue. If you want, we can go to the CBO and other impartial sources and I can show you. But then, you do not like facts. So I won't until you tell me you do not believe what I am saying. Also, the budget for 2012 was not $1.3 B, but under $1.1B. An over $200B decrease.

It is your OPINION that raising taxes on rich people is the solution to this issue.

No, it is not. At least not directly. You assume that you should put the extra tax revenue into the treasury to directly decrease the deficit. Which would not help nearly enough. What I am saying is that you increase taxes and use the revenue to stimulate the economy. The increase in hiring will help a great deal in getting the economy moving, and full employment will allow balancing the budget. Just as Reagan did after his great tax decrease drove the economy into a hole. Then, with rampant deficit growth and unemployment at it's highest rate since the great depression at 10.8%, reagan increased taxes 11 times and borrowed like a drunken sailor. And the economy got better. So, you could call my plan the Reagan plan. And hell, he did not have a big problem with having increased the size of government during his term.

The FACT is that raising taxes to the clintion level on those over 250k a year will raise $80 billion (out of a $1,300 billion deficit). The FACT is that EVERYONES taxes would have to go up to cover that deficit, even if you confiscate everyones income over $250k a year.

Please see the above.

The fact that we pay low taxes now has no bearing on ones opinion of how taxes should be based on income.

?

The FACT of your greed and desire to punish other people who make more than you is clear for all to see.

Sorry, I do not appreciate greed. Nor am I interested in punishing anyone. I just like the truth. You know. The facts, just the facts, and nothing but the facts.

And by the way, you may want to ponder how punished those businesses felt with the best economy in decades during the clinton admin. You know, when taxes went up and companies made more than in decades?

 

[Rshermr]

Considering even our poor people have TV's, cars, and are often overweight due to TOO MUCH food, not really.

Let me see if I understand you, Marty. You are actually saying that since the poor mostly buy tv's and stuff, from china in this case, and eat too much, in your opinion, shows that there is no problem here. Correct, Marty.

Wow. Profound, really profound.

The issue is that money makes money, so people with more money to start making more money than people with less of it makes sense.

Unless you start a program where you take the money from the rich and give it directly to the poor, the only "transfer" going on is to mid to high level federal burecrats and thier salaries. Then those new members of the "elite" distribute just enough to the poor snd others to buy thier votes, and keep thier power.

Its a simple game to figure out once you see it.

It is more largely a matter of corporations controlling politicians and getting what they want. So, they get politicians to prosecute unions. They get politicians to give them tax loopholes. They offshore work. they reduce pay. And on and on. If you look at the numbers kept by the gov, you will see that the number of wealthy have stayed about the same, but the middle class has shrunk, and the poverty class has grown.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they get politicians to prosecute unions, give them tax loopholes. They offshore work. They reduce pay. And on and on.

a little econ 101 for you! Under Republican capitalism, those advantages must go to customers, not to owner. For example, if you move off shore and put the labor savings in your pocket rather than reduce your customer's prices, a competitor can also move off shore, reduce his prices below yours , and drive you into bankruptcy!!

Welcome to your first lesson in Econ 101, class one, day one!!

 

[Oddball]

It's an opinion based upon observation.

You blame the shopkeepers for the protection racketeers.

And you blame the puppets for the string pullers. So it's an observation based on opinion.


In any case you CON$ are ass backwards as usual.

No, that's your turf.

You're so stupid that you blame Tessio and Clemenza for Don Vito.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So Martyb says:

Taxes being low is a GOOD thing.

S]
So, good, you took my education well. No thank you, I notice. But at least you now agree that taxes are low.

The problem is the FACT that the budget is short by 1.3 trillion a year. Spending is the problem, not revenue. This is my opinion.

Another opinion. It is indeed a problem. But not the problem. The problem is unemployment. And it is not just spending, it is mostly revenue. Because, primarily, unemployment is high causing a slowdown in tax revenue. If you want, we can go to the CBO and other impartial sources and I can show you. But then, you do not like facts. So I won't until you tell me you do not believe what I am saying. Also, the budget for 2012 was not $1.3 B, but under $1.1B. An over $200B decrease.



No, it is not. At least not directly. You assume that you should put the extra tax revenue into the treasury to directly decrease the deficit. Which would not help nearly enough. What I am saying is that you increase taxes and use the revenue to stimulate the economy. The increase in hiring will help a great deal in getting the economy moving, and full employment will allow balancing the budget. Just as Reagan did after his great tax decrease drove the economy into a hole. Then, with rampant deficit growth and unemployment at it's highest rate since the great depression at 10.8%, reagan increased taxes 11 times and borrowed like a drunken sailor. And the economy got better. So, you could call my plan the Reagan plan. And hell, he did not have a big problem with having increased the size of government during his term.



Please see the above.

The fact that we pay low taxes now has no bearing on ones opinion of how taxes should be based on income.

?

The FACT of your greed and desire to punish other people who make more than you is clear for all to see.

Sorry, I do not appreciate greed. Nor am I interested in punishing anyone. I just like the truth. You know. The facts, just the facts, and nothing but the facts.

And by the way, you may want to ponder how punished those businesses felt with the best economy in decades during the clinton admin. You know, when taxes went up and companies made more than in decades?

you mean when the government was tiny, when Clinton inherited a huge boom from Bush 41, when we didn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, when there was no foreign competition to speak of, and when Newt forced Clinton to say, "the era of big government is over" and to balance the budget??

Most conservatives like that era because it was so conservative thanks to Newt, the first Republican COngress in 40 years, and of course, Monica!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, listening to the cons on this board, you would think that the whining employees of this country, the lazy middle class, are completely at fault for their economic reality. This article looks at the issue from a non partial point of view.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, maybe a good look at what is being said in this study can generate some discussion. Over the years, my reading of the subject of income distribution heavily weighted to the top is a really really good indication of the end of the reign of leading economies.

But always, always, the wealthy fight any changes, clear to the bitter end.

The other question that comes to mind is obvious. Is this the country that you expected to see, and is it the economy that you want to live with.

Tax Increases and Deficits
Whereas the federal budget was balanced throughout
the low-tax 1920s, the huge tax increases of the 1930s
coincided with large deficits. On the campaign trail in
1932 Roosevelt noted: “For over two years our federal
government has experienced unprecedented deficits, in
spite of increased taxes.”3 Under Roosevelt, however, total
federal tax revenues jumped from $1.9 billion in fiscal
year 1932 to $6.5 billion by FY1940. Yet, the FY1940
deficit of $2.9 billion was larger than the FY1932 deficit
of $2.7 billion (see Figure 1). That tripling of tax revenues
occurred during a near-zero inflation period. (In 1938, a
near budget balance occurs because of a sharp drop in
veterans spending and a sharp tax increase under the new
Social Security payroll tax).
\
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0303-14.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Over the years, my reading of the subject of income distribution heavily weighted to the top is a really really good indication of the end of the reign of leading economies.

the liberal agenda: abortion, divorce, welfare, and feminism destroyed the American family and created millions of very very poor single mothers who account for much of the change in income distribution.

Also welfare payments and all the other entitlements are not included in income so as liberals discourage people from working with more and more new entitlements their income departs a lot from those few who still do work!

If you don't like income inequality you don't like the liberal agenda which creates it!!

 

[Rshermr]

So, listening to the cons on this board, you would think that the whining employees of this country, the lazy middle class, are completely at fault for their economic reality. This article looks at the issue from a non partial point of view.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, maybe a good look at what is being said in this study can generate some discussion. Over the years, my reading of the subject of income distribution heavily weighted to the top is a really really good indication of the end of the reign of leading economies.

But always, always, the wealthy fight any changes, clear to the bitter end.

The other question that comes to mind is obvious. Is this the country that you expected to see, and is it the economy that you want to live with.

Tax Increases and Deficits
Whereas the federal budget was balanced throughout
the low-tax 1920s, the huge tax increases of the 1930s
coincided with large deficits. On the campaign trail in
1932 Roosevelt noted: “For over two years our federal
government has experienced unprecedented deficits, in
spite of increased taxes.”3 Under Roosevelt, however, total
federal tax revenues jumped from $1.9 billion in fiscal
year 1932 to $6.5 billion by FY1940. Yet, the FY1940
deficit of $2.9 billion was larger than the FY1932 deficit
of $2.7 billion (see Figure 1). That tripling of tax revenues
occurred during a near-zero inflation period. (In 1938, a
near budget balance occurs because of a sharp drop in
veterans spending and a sharp tax increase under the new
Social Security payroll tax).
\
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0303-14.pdf

And again, Bigred, the con tool, is out on the bat shit crazy web sites. And found a section of bs to copy and paste from CATO's web site. CATO, the site founded and headed by the Koch bros for years, and an avowed center of libertarian thought.
Nice job again, red. Do you ever try to find info from a non partisan site? Nah, of course not. Hey, red, if I bring you some information from moveon.org, whould you believe it? Me either, without spending a lot of time vetting it. So that is why I do not. Because, dipshit, I have some integrity. Which you do not. Integrity, red, look it up.