Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[Article 15]

Funny how you claim not to play that game, yet can still say that a bloated socialistic welfare state of the size that existed a scant dozen years ago isn't big enough.

What is big enough?...What's too big?

I don't have an answer to that. I'm looking to balance a budget not get government to a size that is acceptable to me. Like I said, go play that game with somebody else.

Of course you don't have an answer to that...That's the point.

You claim to want balance, without any definition as to how it manifests itself...Then you accuse those of wanting clear and unambiguous answers as to what constitutes "balance" of playing games.

Nut up or shut up.

No that's just you making shit up.

I've already said end the bush tax cuts and cut spending to where it balances. That's it. Your obsession with killing government is clouding your thinking. Bark up another tree or sleep it off.

 

[Article 15]

Ideologically driven people can be so damned ridiculous. Most people don't think in your terms.

 

[Oddball]

I don't have an answer to that. I'm looking to balance a budget not get government to a size that is acceptable to me. Like I said, go play that game with somebody else.

Of course you don't have an answer to that...That's the point.

You claim to want balance, without any definition as to how it manifests itself...Then you accuse those of wanting clear and unambiguous answers as to what constitutes "balance" of playing games.

Nut up or shut up.

No that's just you making shit up.

I've already said end the bush tax cuts and cut spending to where it balances. That's it. Your obsession with killing government is clouding your thinking. Bark up another tree or sleep it off.

This has nothing do do with your straw dog claim that I want to kill gubmint.

You can't balance shit because the entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid and Socialist Insecurity) is taking off on the demographic rocket ride that Ross Perot pointed to back in 1992.

The only real balance comes with either inflating the shit out of the USD or the admission that those entitlement programs are economically unsustainable.

The difference being that I'm committed to reality and you are not.

 

[Article 15]

Of course you don't have an answer to that...That's the point.

You claim to want balance, without any definition as to how it manifests itself...Then you accuse those of wanting clear and unambiguous answers as to what constitutes "balance" of playing games.

Nut up or shut up.

No that's just you making shit up.

I've already said end the bush tax cuts and cut spending to where it balances. That's it. Your obsession with killing government is clouding your thinking. Bark up another tree or sleep it off.

This has nothing do do with your straw dog claim that I want to kill gubmint.

You can't balance shit because the entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid and Socialist Insecurity) is taking off on the demographic rocket ride that Ross Perot pointed to back in 1992.

The only real balance comes with either inflating the shit out of the USD or the admission that those entitlement programs are economically unsustainable.

The difference being that I'm committed to reality and you are not.

Or we could, you know, increase our revenue but that goes against your ideology and is therefor is not part of your reality.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's consistent.

Those defending the wealthy use the event of how much of the taxes the wealthy pay, why not address the actual income gap and the factual growing income inequality? Why not address the wealthy's share of the National Income which has grown leaps and bounds, while the working class's share of the National Income has dropped like a rock.?

I just want to know what this magic number of "fair share" is.

That's a good question and there is no magic number. BUT there's a good ratio.

Considering workers are making less now in Real Dollars (constant 1982 dollars) than the workers were in the 1970's. (Graph 1) Maybe a "fair share" is the ratio of a workers wage as a percentage of the profit as they were in 1978!

Of course that'll never happen. Look at Graph 2, this is a historical graph of corporate profits. Be sure to note as wages went flat, profits skyrocketed. It's no wonder that the working public is getting more and more pissed off. Oh, those socialist, they should shut up and be very, very happy for Corporate America.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm all for cutting spending but I also believe that cutting spending too much and too quickly would seriously hurt the economy and possibly could lead to another recession.

In the UK spending was cut too deeply which in turn slowed growth and led to a good sized drop in their GNP projections and realization. Many economist are predicting a recession in the UK as soon as 2012 as the result of slowing the economy too much.

Oh, so bureaucrats shouldn't be exposed to the same negative effects of artificially pumped up bubble economies, as have those participating out in the real world.

Glad to know whose side you stand on, tovarich.

Glad to know that you are one of the most profound economists to grace the world stage!

 

[auditor0007]

Of course you don't have an answer to that...That's the point.

You claim to want balance, without any definition as to how it manifests itself...Then you accuse those of wanting clear and unambiguous answers as to what constitutes "balance" of playing games.

Nut up or shut up.

No that's just you making shit up.

I've already said end the bush tax cuts and cut spending to where it balances. That's it. Your obsession with killing government is clouding your thinking. Bark up another tree or sleep it off.

This has nothing do do with your straw dog claim that I want to kill gubmint.

You can't balance shit because the entitlement spending (i.e. Medicare/Medicaid and Socialist Insecurity) is taking off on the demographic rocket ride that Ross Perot pointed to back in 1992.

The only real balance comes with either inflating the shit out of the USD or the admission that those entitlement programs are economically unsustainable.

The difference being that I'm committed to reality and you are not.

They are sustainable if you raise the retirement age. It's something the left does not want but the fact is that neither SS or Medicare were intended to support retirees for fifteen years. Most people are capable of working to 70 or 72. If they cannot do it physically, then there is disability. But we also have to change our economic philosophy on retaining employees longer. It's not as easy as just saying people need to work longer, but in the end, that is the real solution.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm all for cutting spending but I also believe that cutting spending too much and too quickly would seriously hurt the economy and possibly could lead to another recession.

In the UK spending was cut too deeply which in turn slowed growth and led to a good sized drop in their GNP projections and realization. Many economist are predicting a recession in the UK as soon as 2012 as the result of slowing the economy too much.

Oh, so bureaucrats shouldn't be exposed to the same negative effects of artificially pumped up bubble economies, as have those participating out in the real world.

Glad to know whose side you stand on, tovarich.

Unfortunately, the "bureaucrats" tend to be teachers, cops, and firemen. Those bureaucrats really stick together.

 

[Cecilie1200]

here's a clue...you 1/2% ows'ers don't SPEAK for the rest of us you all like to call the 99%...you don't have our permission and I demand (since that is your gig) to STOP..

We speak for your interests. If we don't at the same time represent your opinions, that's because you have been deluded by those who are fleecing you.

Demand we "stop" all you like. We won't.

You speak for YOU, bitch. You don't get to appoint yourself as spokes-asshole for people you don't know without asking them and getting their permission. And only an arrogant dipshit liberal would think "If we don't represent your opinions, we still speak for you" makes any goddamned sense at all. I'm not even going to comment on the hubris of "We speak for you, because you're too deluded to know what's good for you."

Maybe we don't disagree with you because WE'RE stupid. Maybe we disagree with you because YOU are. Consider the possibilities.

We don't demand you stop speaking, fucknut. We demand you stop claiming you speak for anyone but yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't speak for the interests of any American who actually produces something of value. You speak for useless parasites who suck off the taxpayers.

I speak for people who hold jobs and work. Perhaps you regard such people as "useless parasites." It would certainly be in character.

No, asshole. You still speak for YOU. If you want to speak for other people, I suggest you run for elected office. Or apply for a job as a public relations rep, one of the two. You don't get to appoint yourself to speak for people who never agreed to it.

I'm pretty sure he regards YOU as a useless parasite. I know I do, just from the way you keep battening yourself onto total strangers and declaring that you "speak for them".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because there is nothing stopping the folks who want more from bettering themselves to get what they feel they deserve.

Sure there is: the fact that only so many people can be successful. How many "so many" actually is, is determined by the rules of the economic game.

Right now, we have economic game rules that are directed towards maximizing the winnings of the biggest winners, rather than opening opportunities for everyone else. That means that the opportunities are much less than they were when I was a boy and the orientation of government policy was the direct opposite.

It will always be possible for "the best" -- the most dedicated, the smartest, the hardest-working -- to achieve success. What varies is how good someone has to be to be one of "the best."

Where is it written, other than in your own delusional mind, that "only so many can be successful"? And what IS that magic number of people who can be successful? What, exactly, are these "rules of the economic game" that decide that number?

All I hear is a bunch of vague "blah blah This sounds so profound and knowledgeable, I'll bet no one will notice that I'm not really saying a damned thing blah blah." Guess what? Someone noticed.

Say something real, or shut the fuck up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because there is nothing stopping the folks who want more from bettering themselves to get what they feel they deserve.

Sure there is: the fact that only so many people can be successful. How many "so many" actually is, is determined by the rules of the economic game.

Horseshit:

Here's an easy rule of thumb for determining what the truth is: the exact opposite of what Dragon posts.

You certainly hit THAT nail on the head.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because there is nothing stopping the folks who want more from bettering themselves to get what they feel they deserve.

Sure there is: the fact that only so many people can be successful. How many "so many" actually is, is determined by the rules of the economic game.

Right now, we have economic game rules that are directed towards maximizing the winnings of the biggest winners, rather than opening opportunities for everyone else. That means that the opportunities are much less than they were when I was a boy and the orientation of government policy was the direct opposite.

It will always be possible for "the best" -- the most dedicated, the smartest, the hardest-working -- to achieve success. What varies is how good someone has to be to be one of "the best."

Bullshit....

Success is relative to supply and demand...

For example - if everyone became a doctor today then the doctor would be making 8 bucks an hour and the shit shoveler would be making 250k...

Wealthy people are only wealthy and successful because there is a high demand for their product or service..

Exactly.

How good do you have to be? Good enough to make someone want to pay you to do whatever it is you do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm curious, Franco...

Do you purposely try to make your posts gibberish?

I'm also curious to know who the 12 people were that actually thought you posted something deserving of Rep? Do you post elsewhere on the board that I haven't seen and make posts that are comprehensible?

He's very popular with the twelve most imbecilic, incomprehensible posters on this board (besides himself).

 

[Cecilie1200]

President Barack Obama’s plan to make the tax code more “fair” by permanently raising taxes, on the top 1% by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Yet we have a Government that over spends more than a 1 trillion every year.

Bringing in 1.5 trillion over a 10 year period, is not going to help at all to bring down the spending in Washington.

Our Government brings in a little over 2.2 trillion every year and only 53% pay taxes.
2 trillion is more than enough for our government yet they spend 1 trillion more.

When does the growth stop? Each and every year government has gotten bigger and bigger and borrowed more and more.
Government has grown to an unsustainable amount and needs to be cut back.
They need to spend what they bring in and not borrow any more until we get our deficit down.

Raising taxes on the rich is not going to remedy the problem.

But the other reason why the deficit is so large is because there isn't enough revenue. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point. What we need to do is stop government spending and raise taxes. Not just on the rich but the lower brackets as well.

You don't generate more revenue by raising taxes, dumbass. I realize Obama and his minions have confused your tiny mind by changing the words they use, but "tax increase" and "revenue increase" are NOT synonyms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course the top 1% pay more in taxes, but given their income, they aren't paying enough. Their tax rates are at an all time low.

Check out the graphs on pages 9-11 in my signature.

well how nice of you to decide they aren't PAYING ENOUGH. why don't you get a gang together and go stick up them up, rob them of their monies and distribute it as you see fit.

I am so sick of hearing that tired conservative thinking. It really pisses me off. Did you not see my OP?

Nothing seeps in, does it?

Your OP seeped in, dimwit. It amazes me that you can say shit, and not even recognize that you're saying it. What do you think "They aren't paying their fair share as long as they still have so much money left; we should raise taxes on them until they have a lot less" MEANS, you driveling moron? It means you want them to have less, according to YOUR personal standards of what people should and shouldn't have, and that you want a group of people - the government, in the form of the IRS, backed up by the armed might of law enforcement - to go take it from them forcibly.

If you're sick of hearing conservatives telling you that you talk like a greedy armed robber, and it really pisses you off, maybe you should try NOT SOUNDING LIKE A GREEDY ARMED ROBBER, you dolt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is an UNGODLY amount of revenue.... It is a goddamn spending problem...

Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?

While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?

Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?

Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.

Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?

Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.

I have a better idea. (Admittedly, having a better idea than you isn't hard. My dog could probably manage it.) How about we start with cutting all the stuff not mentioned or even alluded to in the Constitution? THEN, if we still need to talk about more cuts, we can talk about reductions in essential Constitutional services.

As long as there's a National Endowment for the Arts, I don't want to hear one fucking WORD about defense spending.

 

[bripat9643]

well how nice of you to decide they aren't PAYING ENOUGH. why don't you get a gang together and go stick up them up, rob them of their monies and distribute it as you see fit.

I am so sick of hearing that tired conservative thinking. It really pisses me off. Did you not see my OP?

Nothing seeps in, does it?

Your OP seeped in, dimwit. It amazes me that you can say shit, and not even recognize that you're saying it. What do you think "They aren't paying their fair share as long as they still have so much money left; we should raise taxes on them until they have a lot less" MEANS, you driveling moron? It means you want them to have less, according to YOUR personal standards of what people should and shouldn't have, and that you want a group of people - the government, in the form of the IRS, backed up by the armed might of law enforcement - to go take it from them forcibly.

If you're sick of hearing conservatives telling you that you talk like a greedy armed robber, and it really pisses you off, maybe you should try NOT SOUNDING LIKE A GREEDY ARMED ROBBER, you dolt.

You have to understand that libturds don't believe that saying they want to take money from people using the government guns is robbery, class war or even envy. They have deluded themselves with all kinds of nice sounding euphemisms like "social justice" and "paying your fair share." Inventing these euphemisms is a growth industry. It's a full time job for pinko professors in our government universities.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am so sick of hearing that tired conservative thinking. It really pisses me off. Did you not see my OP?

Nothing seeps in, does it?

Your OP seeped in, dimwit. It amazes me that you can say shit, and not even recognize that you're saying it. What do you think "They aren't paying their fair share as long as they still have so much money left; we should raise taxes on them until they have a lot less" MEANS, you driveling moron? It means you want them to have less, according to YOUR personal standards of what people should and shouldn't have, and that you want a group of people - the government, in the form of the IRS, backed up by the armed might of law enforcement - to go take it from them forcibly.

If you're sick of hearing conservatives telling you that you talk like a greedy armed robber, and it really pisses you off, maybe you should try NOT SOUNDING LIKE A GREEDY ARMED ROBBER, you dolt.

You have to understand that libturds don't believe that saying they want to take money from people using the government guns is robbery, class war or even envy. They have deluded themselves with all kinds of nice sounding euphemisms like "social justice" and "paying your fair share." Inventing these euphemisms is a growth industry. It's a full time job for pinko professors in our government universities.

Oh, I understand it. That's why I keep interrupting their pleasant little euphemistic fantasies with repetitions of the cold, hard truth. It's always possible one of them might wake the hell up, and it's always good for a laugh when they start frothing at the mouth.

 

[frazzledgear]

I certainly don't. I'd just like them to pay their fair share in taxes.

Who the hell are liberals to think they get to decide what is "fair share"? Huh? Where the hell did liberals get off believing THEY get to decide what "fair share" is and then insist everyone else must accept that? When the top 1% are paying nearly 40% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 49% are paying nothing -that is proof positive liberals don't have a CLUE what "fair share" even means!

If it doesn't impact YOUR wallet personally -then why would anyone believe you even have a legitimate opinion about how much the wealthy should pay when it is no skin off YOUR nose at the same time? Do you even understand what tyranny is? Because that is what class warfare is -it is TYRANNY committed by the majority against a minority that is perceived to be an easy target. You want what they got, there are more of you than there are of them -so you just pass laws to TAKE it from them. "Fair"? Give me a break with that lying ass bullshit. No one loves tyranny like liberals who always think they have a right to use the power and force of government to tyrannize those who aren't doing, saying, living, believing the "right things" or having enough of their wealth confiscated by government. It is the fundamental principle of liberalism in the first place.

The wealthy are already footing the overwhelming bulk of the bills and it is in reality greedy people like YOU are still wallowing in envy and hatred insisting it STILL isn't enough, pretending what YOU decide is "fair" is the only legitimate opinion on it. SCREW YOU -someone isn't paying their fair share alright -but it isn't those at the top. For liberals it actually is never enough until those who busted their ass to earn it are deprived of the benefit.

The average work week of the wealthy is 70 hours -nearly twice as much as the average work week which is now just 36 hours a week. How about if everyone suddenly decide people like you are just NOT WORKING your "fair share"? Then where do you get off deciding those who work twice as hard owe YOU for it and that GOVERNMENT is more entitled to it than the person who busted his ass to earn it?? You think someone who works longer and harder than you somehow OWES you then because he did that? WHO OWNS THAT INCOME FIRST in the world of a liberal? You can't be a liberal unless you believe man exists as government owned property and therefore what we work to earn actually belongs to government -not the slave. And naturally liberals believe only THEIR opinion about what is and is not "fair share" matters. Which is how we ended up with nearly half the population parasiting the other half -the half still squealing they need to open their veins wider to be bled more heavily. Liberals have repeatedly proven time and again -they will bleed 'em completely dry and still show nothing but contempt for them the entire time as they do. They DESPISE them and encourage others to do so as well -insisting the fact THEY have something others don't is "proof" they just aren't paying their "fair share" .

For liberals it is NEVER that government SPENDS TOO MUCH. NEVER NEVER NEVER is that something they believe to be true. It is always people aren't having enough of their money confiscated by government. As if they think it belongs to government first and not the person who worked to earn it -and it's a given liberals believe government makes better use of it than the person who earned it anyway because to liberals government is an all wise, all knowing, MAGICAL entity that no matter the problem, more and bigger government is ALWAYS the answer.

Just because you think half the nation is ENTITLED to exist as parasites of the other half and STILL want to pretend those being parasited aren't paying enough in NO WAY obligates me or anyone else to buy into that bullshit and pretend "FAIR" has a fucking thing to do with it! "Fair" is no part of the liberal agenda no matter how often they bandy the word about -coming from a liberal, you can be assured "fair" has nothing to do with what they are really after.

We live in a nation that we have claimed to be OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people but that is IMPOSSIBLE when only SOME of the people are footing the bills. Even if it means those at the bottom only pay a token amount, EVERYONE must have skin in the game because what government does with it and how it is spent, how it is wasted, corrupted, stolen, misused, abused MUST matter to EVERYONE. But it doesn't matter to those who have nothing at stake but are then told the people footing the bulk of the bills still aren't paying enough. Sounds good when its not YOUR money they are trying to lay claim to, doesn't it? No amount will ever be considered "fair" by liberals -and they have no problem uttering the biggest lies either. When nearly half are getting a free ride, how hard do you really have to work to convince them its actually those footing the bulk of the bills who are the greedy ones here?