Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[sealybobo]

I think most of us would give up Walmart & Dollar Stories (cheep goods) if we could bring home all those high paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to chinese, mexican, canadian, european workers.

Those high paying manufacturing jobs spurred the economy. Companies thrived just servicing the big 3. All those jobs bye bye. I know some of it is technology and blabla but the rich/corporations/republicans/even blue dog democrats fucked us all. NAFTA. Mother fuckers. I'm cool with trade but unregulated free trade? Not so much. American workers were the envy of the world. People came here to start at the bottom and quickly work their way up. The GOP/Bush really fucked up the economy and NEVER admitted responsibility. It was always Clinton/Freddy Mac/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed/Obama. Suck my dick.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't get the whole idea of making an idol out of Constitution. It was created to improve people lives, not to be an excuse for making people suffer. Also, it was designed amendable for this very reason -- so we can improve it.

The thing is that so many people doubt their own intelligence, and for a good reason -- and they hope that with the Constitution they won't have to use their brains.

Wow, another intellectual in the mix. The United States Constitution was created as a contract between the federal government and the soverign states. It was not created to improve people's lives, in fact it has little to do with people's lives. It was made amendable by the entities that created it, the soverign states, and not by anyone else.

The Supreme Court is part of the federal government, and allowing the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution is like allowing your mortgage company to modify your mortgage at their convenience. A contract, that is not adhered to by the contracting parties, is a worthless piece of paper, and a joke. In the case of the Constitution, the joke is on us.

A free people need the rule of law to be supreme. The alternative is the rule of man, and that means the man in charge, and freedom is fleeting in that environment.

The Articles of Confederation was a firm league of friendship between the states but the Constitution was not a contract between the states and the national government. The Constitution was created by the people for the people's benefit.

It wasn't a contract between the states even though the states had to approve it?

Libturds say the dumbest things.

 

[Dad2three]

"**** what's fair."

And

"you have a responsibility to pay your fair share."

All in the same post.

Fun.

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).

the democrats controlled congress for most of that time, why did they let that happen?

Weird, I thought Prez Obama was at fault?

Hint, REAGAN had a GOP Senate 6 years like Dubya had a GOP Congress for 6, oh like Clinton too? HMM


Now why wont the GOP work with Obama on making sure the Buffet rule, min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes? PLEASE let me know why that's horrible?

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure they do pal. Fact is, the corporate American media lies to you and Americans quality of life is going down while the rest of the world is going up. They are investing in their infrastructure and their people, we are not.

America rules...at crony capitalism. Rabbi sucks.

You dont get it.
Protecting industries at the expense of your consumers IS crony capitalism. Other countries engage in it much more than we do.
Quality of life is not going down. Maybe your's is because you sit around all day angry at people who have more than you do. But for most people it's better.
Your attempt to generalize over every other country is pathetic.

**** the consumers. They didn't mind paying taxes when they had jobs, homes, cares, savings. Now that daddy doesn't have a pension anymore and healthcare is expensive, don't expect to live the American dream like he did. He had/has a pension, ss, medicare, savings. He was making over 10% on his investments. What are people making now 1%? Gotta have stock market money.

Listen, I don't even know where to start with you four monkeys. I remember all 4 of you from 2 years ago. You're all a bunch of douch bag right wing idiots. How much do you make that you feel things are better in republicans hands? **** tea baggers and libertarians.

I don't know where you live but we here in Michigan saw what liberal democracies produced. And we see what republicans have brought in. Sure our fathers thought Reagan was swell but he was the beginning of the end.

Want to cut the debt? Then ask the rich and corporations to pay more. You guys say we don't know our history, but we do. And we know your revionist history is bullshit.

Fact is, you guys have NEVER admitted Bush sucked and the Tom Delay run government for 6 years is what put us in this mess. It's so obvious yet you just ignore it. So the four of you can go **** yourselves.

Facts: We were doing fine, until Bush. We had a surplus. All the sacrifices have been on the poor and middle class. The rich are doing fabulously. Started 2 wars, Haloburton got rich. Sent jobs overseas, deregulated, changed bankruptsy laws, turned blind eye to hiring illegals (tyson chicken). I could go on and on but you four aren't worth it. 2 years later, same old bullshit.

You understand consumers are largely the middle class, right? SO you just wrote "**** the middle class" right after you give a screed about how the middle class are getting fucked.
You're so screwed up you dont know what you're ranting about. But someone out there has a bigger piece of cake than you do and you want your fair share, dammit.

 

[Dad2three]

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for covetousness.

daveman


You keep insisting that you deserve what you haven't earned...but you never rationally explain why.

BECAUSE THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' DIDN'T CREATE THEIR WEALTH IN A BUBBLE, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD, SWEAT AND MANY DEATHS OF MANY THAT CAME BEFORE THEM. WE CREATED A SOCIETY WITH RULES AND LAWS TO HELP THEM BUILD THAT MONEY. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT, GET THE **** OUT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!



The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.


Big Money, it doesn’t matter whether it is from the Left or the Right, is drowning The People’s Voice out of our Representative Democracy, plain and simple

It seems that only those on the Left are concerned about this. Why? Do we cherish the idea of Democracy more than those on the Right?


How is it that so many on the Right, who practically worship the Founders of this, cannot see that this conflux of consolidated wealth and influence is EXACTLY what the Founders fought against?



History has proven through the centuries that the type of wealth/power consolidation we are seeing is rarely a good thing.

History has proven conclusively that what you want is NEVER a good thing.

You wept bitterly when the Berlin Wall fell, didn't you?

Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged. The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[sealybobo]

BECAUSE THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' DIDN'T CREATE THEIR WEALTH IN A BUBBLE, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD, SWEAT AND MANY DEATHS OF MANY THAT CAME BEFORE THEM. WE CREATED A SOCIETY WITH RULES AND LAWS TO HELP THEM BUILD THAT MONEY. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT, GET THE **** OUT OF THE UNITED STATES OF

You cannot be serious. Nobody can be this ******* dense. The American corporate model is about sharing the wealth with the employees? We have a market economy. Workers sell their time, labor and skills in consideration of compensation being paid. That is it. Corporate business has never been about taking care if employees and sharing wealth. Frankly, that misguided idea is servitude. Do you not see that?

Maybe this seems cold to you, but it is not. I would much rather be free to work where I please than be in reliance upon my corporate nanny taking care of me.

I am sure you do not remember, but once we had something called mill villages in this country. The worker would move into a shitty little mill house given to him and his family. He was given food. He was paid a shitty little wage. He was totally dependent upon the mill. This is servitude. I would much rather develop and market my skills to those who pay me the most.

Now, maybe you do not have the stomach for this. So be it. You can live a miserable life on handouts if that is what you choose.

Honestly, you are not worth talking to. You have hare brained notions about what America should be and are apparently ignorant of how a market economy works. I pity you.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And we aren't asking them to share it. A long time ago the politicians set the taxes where they were for whatever reason. The rich paid more and the poor pay nothing. Progressive. It's the way it always worked. Then they started cutting taxes on the rich, more and more decade after decade.

If you watch the FDR documentaries, it is amazing how he fought the rich for us the middle class. These guys who call him a socialist for the New Deal are haters. They are basically saying he sucks for creating the best middle class the world has ever seen in the history of this planet for more than 70 years. But the rich/corporations/GOP are slowly lowering the taxes as they apply to them. Thom Hartmann wrote a great op ed called Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes and he explains how the taxes have gone down decade after decade and today our infrastructure is falling apart and the debt is still going up and our taxes are going up but they are asking for them to get more and more tax breaks.

The people who vote GOP and are not rich to me are just out of their minds. They have been brainwashed to not realize/remember/know what made this country great. I believe unions, labor laws, civil rights, workers rights, sick days, over time, minimum wage increases and REGULATIONS on industry are what made this country great.

Is our entire political system fucked up? Sure is. Just look at Citizens United. Just look at how much it costs to win an election. Just look at how the Democrats answer to Lobbyists not their constituents. Only difference is Republicans go along with whatever their party does so Republicans don't get punished for lying, being a hypocrite, pollution, bigotry, racism, tea bagging, obstructionism. They don't fear their constituents because they got them with racism, god gays and guns.

And Democrats have me because there is no other choice. Libertarians and Tea Baggers are backed by the Koch brothers. The rich would love to libertarian the middle class. That should be a negative word.

 

[Dad2three]

Democratic fallacy.
Rabbi Rules!

Other countries do it as part of crony capitalism. It doesnt work. It makes their own citizens poorer and does nothing for the competitiveness or health of domestic industries.

Sure they do pal. Fact is, the corporate American media lies to you and Americans quality of life is going down while the rest of the world is going up. They are investing in their infrastructure and their people, we are not.

America rules...at crony capitalism. Rabbi sucks.

You dont get it.
Protecting industries at the expense of your consumers IS crony capitalism. Other countries engage in it much more than we do.
Quality of life is not going down. Maybe your's is because you sit around all day angry at people who have more than you do. But for most people it's better.
Your attempt to generalize over every other country is pathetic.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly-won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

You dont get it.
Protecting industries at the expense of your consumers IS crony capitalism. Other countries engage in it much more than we do.
Quality of life is not going down. Maybe your's is because you sit around all day angry at people who have more than you do. But for most people it's better.
Your attempt to generalize over every other country is pathetic.

**** the consumers. They didn't mind paying taxes when they had jobs, homes, cares, savings. Now that daddy doesn't have a pension anymore and healthcare is expensive, don't expect to live the American dream like he did. He had/has a pension, ss, medicare, savings. He was making over 10% on his investments. What are people making now 1%? Gotta have stock market money.

Listen, I don't even know where to start with you four monkeys. I remember all 4 of you from 2 years ago. You're all a bunch of douch bag right wing idiots. How much do you make that you feel things are better in republicans hands? **** tea baggers and libertarians.

I don't know where you live but we here in Michigan saw what liberal democracies produced. And we see what republicans have brought in. Sure our fathers thought Reagan was swell but he was the beginning of the end.

Want to cut the debt? Then ask the rich and corporations to pay more. You guys say we don't know our history, but we do. And we know your revionist history is bullshit.

Fact is, you guys have NEVER admitted Bush sucked and the Tom Delay run government for 6 years is what put us in this mess. It's so obvious yet you just ignore it. So the four of you can go **** yourselves.

Facts: We were doing fine, until Bush. We had a surplus. All the sacrifices have been on the poor and middle class. The rich are doing fabulously. Started 2 wars, Haloburton got rich. Sent jobs overseas, deregulated, changed bankruptsy laws, turned blind eye to hiring illegals (tyson chicken). I could go on and on but you four aren't worth it. 2 years later, same old bullshit.

You understand consumers are largely the middle class, right? SO you just wrote "**** the middle class" right after you give a screed about how the middle class are getting fucked.
You're so screwed up you dont know what you're ranting about. But someone out there has a bigger piece of cake than you do and you want your fair share, dammit.

Hey, the rich took their money and purchased our politicians/government. They got them to lower their taxes and make the playing field uneven. The referees are corrupt stupid. Yes I want to have a political revolution and go after the people who wrecked the economy.

And yes, if the ceo goes from 35 times the average worker to 350% of the average worker and the workers don't get a raise, yea we might have to organize, or government might have to step in and be the referee like they are supposed to and I think you know that.

It'd be like the Yankee's buying the refs.

Do you guys not realize that class warfare always goes on and will always go on? The rich are always looking for a way to chip away at the New Deal.

Oh yea, I forgot, all that New Deal stuff was completey UNconstitutional right? ******* retards.

 

[Kosh]

I think most of us would give up Walmart & Dollar Stories (cheep goods) if we could bring home all those high paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to chinese, mexican, canadian, european workers.

Those high paying manufacturing jobs spurred the economy. Companies thrived just servicing the big 3. All those jobs bye bye. I know some of it is technology and blabla but the rich/corporations/republicans/even blue dog democrats fucked us all. NAFTA. Mother fuckers. I'm cool with trade but unregulated free trade? Not so much. American workers were the envy of the world. People came here to start at the bottom and quickly work their way up. The GOP/Bush really fucked up the economy and NEVER admitted responsibility. It was always Clinton/Freddy Mac/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed/Obama. Suck my dick.

Look at all the hyper partisan (far left) propaganda in that post!

This proof and a great example of someone that does not have a clue of what has happened nor cares that it did happen except to point fingers.

Just because you paid a bunch of money for Apple products (made in China) does not mean you will bring back "high" paying jobs to the US.

 

[Dad2three]

BECAUSE THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' DIDN'T CREATE THEIR WEALTH IN A BUBBLE, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD, SWEAT AND MANY DEATHS OF MANY THAT CAME BEFORE THEM. WE CREATED A SOCIETY WITH RULES AND LAWS TO HELP THEM BUILD THAT MONEY. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT, GET THE **** OUT OF THE UNITED STATES OF

You cannot be serious. Nobody can be this ******* dense. The American corporate model is about sharing the wealth with the employees? We have a market economy. Workers sell their time, labor and skills in consideration of compensation being paid. That is it. Corporate business has never been about taking care if employees and sharing wealth. Frankly, that misguided idea is servitude. Do you not see that?

Maybe this seems cold to you, but it is not. I would much rather be free to work where I please than be in reliance upon my corporate nanny taking care of me.

I am sure you do not remember, but once we had something called mill villages in this country. The worker would move into a shitty little mill house given to him and his family. He was given food. He was paid a shitty little wage. He was totally dependent upon the mill. This is servitude. I would much rather develop and market my skills to those who pay me the most.

Now, maybe you do not have the stomach for this. So be it. You can live a miserable life on handouts if that is what you choose.

Honestly, you are not worth talking to. You have hare brained notions about what America should be and are apparently ignorant of how a market economy works. I pity you.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html




HALF OF CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US




80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.




THE WALTON FAMILY (WALMART) HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 41% OF US


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly-won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Redfish]

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).

the democrats controlled congress for most of that time, why did they let that happen?

Weird, I thought Prez Obama was at fault?

Hint, REAGAN had a GOP Senate 6 years like Dubya had a GOP Congress for 6, oh like Clinton too? HMM


Now why wont the GOP work with Obama on making sure the Buffet rule, min 30% fed tax on $1,000,000+ incomes? PLEASE let me know why that's horrible?

for your fun and amazement:

United States Presidents and control of Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

most of the tax code was written by democrats. No president is responsible for the tax code.

 

[sealybobo]

I think most of us would give up Walmart & Dollar Stories (cheep goods) if we could bring home all those high paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to chinese, mexican, canadian, european workers.

Those high paying manufacturing jobs spurred the economy. Companies thrived just servicing the big 3. All those jobs bye bye. I know some of it is technology and blabla but the rich/corporations/republicans/even blue dog democrats fucked us all. NAFTA. Mother fuckers. I'm cool with trade but unregulated free trade? Not so much. American workers were the envy of the world. People came here to start at the bottom and quickly work their way up. The GOP/Bush really fucked up the economy and NEVER admitted responsibility. It was always Clinton/Freddy Mac/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed/Obama. Suck my dick.

Look at all the hyper partisan (far left) propaganda in that post!

This proof and a great example of someone that does not have a clue of what has happened nor cares that it did happen except to point fingers.

Just because you paid a bunch of money for Apple products (made in China) does not mean you will bring back "high" paying jobs to the US.

What is your plan to create more high paying jobs?

 

[Redfish]

BECAUSE THOSE 'JOB CREATORS' DIDN'T CREATE THEIR WEALTH IN A BUBBLE, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD, SWEAT AND MANY DEATHS OF MANY THAT CAME BEFORE THEM. WE CREATED A SOCIETY WITH RULES AND LAWS TO HELP THEM BUILD THAT MONEY. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT, GET THE **** OUT OF THE UNITED STATES OF

You cannot be serious. Nobody can be this ******* dense. The American corporate model is about sharing the wealth with the employees? We have a market economy. Workers sell their time, labor and skills in consideration of compensation being paid. That is it. Corporate business has never been about taking care if employees and sharing wealth. Frankly, that misguided idea is servitude. Do you not see that?

Maybe this seems cold to you, but it is not. I would much rather be free to work where I please than be in reliance upon my corporate nanny taking care of me.

I am sure you do not remember, but once we had something called mill villages in this country. The worker would move into a shitty little mill house given to him and his family. He was given food. He was paid a shitty little wage. He was totally dependent upon the mill. This is servitude. I would much rather develop and market my skills to those who pay me the most.

Now, maybe you do not have the stomach for this. So be it. You can live a miserable life on handouts if that is what you choose.

Honestly, you are not worth talking to. You have hare brained notions about what America should be and are apparently ignorant of how a market economy works. I pity you.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html




HALF OF CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS GO TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% OF US




80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.




THE WALTON FAMILY (WALMART) HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 41% OF US


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly-won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't like the Waltons? Want to punish them? Don't shop at Walmart, Boycott them.

 

[MrZartok]

You apparently have been conditioned by right-wing propagandists to believe redistribution means taking money from you and handing it to some "welfare queen." Right?



What you need to understand is one of the ways FDR raised the Nation out of the Great Depression is by imposing a 91% progressive tax rate -- which affected mainly the rich who were living like royalty while most Americans wallowed in abject poverty. He used that money to implement the WPA and CCC (make work) programs which enabled millions of unemployed Americans (including my father) to earn and spend money, which revitalized the economy and gave rise to the most productive and prosperous years in our history -- the 40s through the 80s.



Then came Ronald Reagan and "Trickle Down," which really means Siphon Up economics, the ultimate effect of which is seen in the rise of the One Percent, which is in fact a financial aristocracy whose influence in Washington has all but destroyed the middle class and has transformed America.



If Obama were not a puppet of Wall Street and the banking industry he would, among other viable measures, impose a confiscatory tax on the rich and implement a make-work program devoted to rebuilding our badly decayed infrastructure. Such a program would not be "handing over" money to any category. It would put Americans back to work and make America a much better place.



Unfortunately there will be no hope for constructive redistribution until we get rid of Obama and manage to elect a President with a socialist orientation. And if that word frightens you it's because you've been conditioned to think the kind of laissez-faire capitalism we're seeing today is the way to go.



It obviously is not.

You do not even understand what you are talking about. You are merely regurgitating ideological tripe.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about what should be expected of income earners and wealth creators. Both Obama and Chief Running Bull, aka Elizabeth Warren, like to perpetuate this fallacy that business owes its wealth to the people because tax money built the roads and provided other infrastructure. What they intentionally omit is that half of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, or state income taxes. They get a 100% refund of the income taxes they pay, and many receive money they did not earn in the form of tax credits (e.g., EIC). Since the wealth creators pay the disproportionate amount of the income taxes and generate the great bulk of federal revenue, it is pretty damn accurate to say that THEY are the ones that built the roads and infrastructure. Big business did not build the road? Bullshit. They sure as he'll did.

If you want a redistribution, they why not ***** about all the wasteful spending and lay claim to that money instead of asking income earners and wealth creators to pay more?

In addition, how is taking more money from these income earners going to help you? Will be it earmarked for handouts to you? No. It will go into the general fund to be spent according to how the politicians determine best. Do you really want to give Washington MORE money to piss away? I think that what you really want is to punish these people. That, if true, represents a pretty low-rent morality.

Next, how much is their "fair share"? Any amount is going to be arbitrary. Do you really want our laws to be based upon arbitrary decisions and judgment?

Finally, it is striking that you think that you are entitled to a redistribution. "Redistribution" means that there will be a "distribution". Why are you entitled to a distribution of wealth that was earned by someone else? The idea is absurd. If you want jobs, then put your effort into pushing a policy that will foster job creation. Extracting money from business via the tax code does nothing to create jobs, unless you a talking about creating a bunch of jobs created for the reason of employing people. This is also ridiculous.

Your ideology is misplaced in a capitalist, free market economy. You are arguing points that are not relevant here. You are wasting your time. Unless your goal is to destroy or replace capitalism, then your time would be better spent on promoting free trade, a robust economy, and prosperity. The need for jobs will follow. As the need for labor increases, then wages will increase. Our system does not provide for distribution to groups who offer nothing of value in exchange. Thus, socialist arguments are irrelevant.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Five myths about the 47 percent


1. Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives. Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare. Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent.

And those aren’t the only other taxes they bear. According to economic research, the corporate income tax discourages domestic investment; that depresses wages, so workers are effectively paying some of the corporate tax. More directly, many households pay federal taxes on gasoline, beer and cigarettes. And then there are state and local sales, property and income taxes — all of which are often less progressive than the federal income tax. Putting all these together, a family of three with an income of $30,000 would owe no federal income tax (in fact, they would get money back). But they could easily pay more than $4,500, or 15 percent of their income, in taxes.

2. Members of the 47 percent will never pay federal income taxes.

Politicians and commentators often talk about those who don’t pay income taxes as though they’re in a special club with lifetime membership. In fact, it’s a highly diverse group, some of whom move in and out from year to year.

When they first join the workforce, for example, young people may not earn enough to pay federal income taxes. The same is true for many of the temporarily unemployed, working parents and entrepreneurs whose businesses experience a loss. But most of these people look forward to the day, perhaps in just a year or two, when their incomes will rise and they will join or rejoin the 53 percent of Americans who do pay federal income taxes.


The reverse is true for many senior citizens: They may pay no federal income tax in retirement, but most did during their working years.

3. Many high-income people game the system to pay no income tax.




Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.


The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.

So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

INCOME TAXES ARE 42% OF FEDERAL REVENUES


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

THOSE




Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to


I never said that half pay no taxes. I said that they pay no income tax. Of course, they pay contributions to Social Security and Medicare. Do you realize that their employers also contribute dollar for dollar for these contributions? For every dollar you pay in SS tax, your employer also pays a dollar. I just thought I would throw that in there to point out that your employer is helping to subsidize these people's retirement and medical care, assuming we are not bankrupt when they are entitled to start receiving SS benefits.

My point is that roads and other infrastructure are not paid for with Medicaid and SS contributions. So, your point is ...., well, not a point. The only contribution to such things would be through state sales taxes. This is a mere drop in the bucket. It is a de minimus contribution.

Then, any minimal contribution that this half of the population makes is offset by all the tax credits handed out. A single mother of 2 making 25K a year gets all of her income taxes back plus 3-4 thousand in tax credit subsides. It is not uncommon for this person to get a total annual income tax refund of 7-9 thousand bucks under current tax law.

This 50% of the population contributes nothing to infrastructure. So be it. But do not put forth this bogus argument that big business is dependent upon the 50%






--Thomas Jefferson

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[MrZartok]

Pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Kosh]

I think most of us would give up Walmart & Dollar Stories (cheep goods) if we could bring home all those high paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to chinese, mexican, canadian, european workers.

Those high paying manufacturing jobs spurred the economy. Companies thrived just servicing the big 3. All those jobs bye bye. I know some of it is technology and blabla but the rich/corporations/republicans/even blue dog democrats fucked us all. NAFTA. Mother fuckers. I'm cool with trade but unregulated free trade? Not so much. American workers were the envy of the world. People came here to start at the bottom and quickly work their way up. The GOP/Bush really fucked up the economy and NEVER admitted responsibility. It was always Clinton/Freddy Mac/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed/Obama. Suck my dick.

Look at all the hyper partisan (far left) propaganda in that post!

This proof and a great example of someone that does not have a clue of what has happened nor cares that it did happen except to point fingers.

Just because you paid a bunch of money for Apple products (made in China) does not mean you will bring back "high" paying jobs to the US.

What is your plan to create more high paying jobs?

Oh the ol' far left Taliban diversion questions... Boring!

Well since I am not a politician it does not matter what my "plan" is, but clearly yours was to buy over priced electronics made in China.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Finally, it is striking that you think that you are entitled to a redistribution. "Redistribution" means that there will be a "distribution". Why are you entitled to a distribution of wealth that was earned by someone else? The idea is absurd. If you want jobs, then put your effort into pushing a policy that will foster job creation. Extracting money from business via the tax code does nothing to create jobs, unless you a talking about creating a bunch of jobs created for the reason of employing people. This is also ridiculous.

The fundamental flaw in the ideology plugged into your brain by the likes of Hannity and Beck is the tired notion that I think I would benefit from a redistribution policy. This notion is predicated on your fear that such a policy means money will be transferred from your pocket to that of some welfare queen. This fear torments you in spite of the specifics outlined in my message.

The fact is my situation will remain the same whether or not economic redistribution takes place. I am 78 years old, so I won't be around long enough to see any major economic changes. And I presently enjoy a generous pension, Social Security, absence of debt, and a nice stack of U.S. Savings Bonds. So my only incentive is to have the damage done to this Nation, by a greedy and corrupt right-wing and its plutocratic offspring, to be reversed -- and for the Great American Middle Class to be restored to the status it enjoyed until the demented puppet, Ronald Reagan, initiated its incremental destruction.

Redistribution does not mean welfare or anything like that. It means re-circulating a substantial percentage of this Nation's wealth resources which have been slyly and unscrupulously deposited into offshore tax havens via a variety of financial schemes and politically facilitated scams, and using those funds to aid in overhauling our decayed infrastructure, thus putting America back to work at good-paying, critically necessary construction jobs.

Your ideology is misplaced in a capitalist, free market economy. You are arguing points that are not relevant here. You are wasting your time. Unless your goal is to destroy or replace capitalism, then your time would be better spent on promoting free trade, a robust economy, and prosperity. The need for jobs will follow. As the need for labor increases, then wages will increase. Our system does not provide for distribution to groups who offer nothing of value in exchange. Thus, socialist arguments are irrelevant.

As I made perfectly clear, but was obviously ignored because of your indoctrinated mindset, my ambition is not to destroy our capitalist system but simply to replace the highly effective and constructive socialist regulations which were removed by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, causing the economic disaster of 2008 and its subsequent effects.

In the simplest terms, I wish to see the right-wing progression of de-regulation reversed and the damage it did repaired. And one of the ways to do that is a confiscatory tax on the One Percent.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, what is it with these geniuses? Their knowledge of economics, much less history, is so awful they write the stupidest things. It's like they're talking about some other country than the one I grew up in the 1960s/70s where Jimmy Carter gave us full employment, low inflation and a strong domestic industry while Ronald Reagan decimated the working class and handed money over to the rich. The opposite of course is what happened.
Their prescriptions are even worse. One asshole here who ludicrously claimed he had a business degree said the solution was price controls. When I pointed out importers of raw materials from abroad would go bankrupt his response was, no they wouldn't since they were located here and subject to the same controls as anyone else. WTF? Where do they teach this stuff?
WHo really believes that millions of people working in factories is a good thing? Who thinks that an America that doesnt import anything is stronger? The ignorance is so thick it is impenetrable.

Beats hell out of me, man. A profound disconnect from reality. Magical thinking. Believing that their words really do alter reality.

In short -- insanity.

 

[daveman]

Sure they do pal. Fact is, the corporate American media lies to you and Americans quality of life is going down while the rest of the world is going up. They are investing in their infrastructure and their people, we are not.

America rules...at crony capitalism. Rabbi sucks.

You dont get it.
Protecting industries at the expense of your consumers IS crony capitalism. Other countries engage in it much more than we do.
Quality of life is not going down. Maybe your's is because you sit around all day angry at people who have more than you do. But for most people it's better.
Your attempt to generalize over every other country is pathetic.

**** the consumers. They didn't mind paying taxes when they had jobs, homes, cares, savings. Now that daddy doesn't have a pension anymore and healthcare is expensive, don't expect to live the American dream like he did. He had/has a pension, ss, medicare, savings. He was making over 10% on his investments. What are people making now 1%? Gotta have stock market money.

Listen, I don't even know where to start with you four monkeys. I remember all 4 of you from 2 years ago. You're all a bunch of douch bag right wing idiots. How much do you make that you feel things are better in republicans hands? **** tea baggers and libertarians.

I don't know where you live but we here in Michigan saw what liberal democracies produced. And we see what republicans have brought in. Sure our fathers thought Reagan was swell but he was the beginning of the end.

Want to cut the debt? Then ask the rich and corporations to pay more. You guys say we don't know our history, but we do. And we know your revionist history is bullshit.

Fact is, you guys have NEVER admitted Bush sucked and the Tom Delay run government for 6 years is what put us in this mess. It's so obvious yet you just ignore it. So the four of you can go **** yourselves.

Facts: We were doing fine, until Bush. We had a surplus. All the sacrifices have been on the poor and middle class. The rich are doing fabulously. Started 2 wars, Haloburton got rich. Sent jobs overseas, deregulated, changed bankruptsy laws, turned blind eye to hiring illegals (tyson chicken). I could go on and on but you four aren't worth it. 2 years later, same old bullshit.

Well, ain't you just a hateful, bitter sack of rage. You should get your blood pressure checked.

 

[daveman]

I think most of us would give up Walmart & Dollar Stories (cheep goods) if we could bring home all those high paying manufacturing jobs that are now going to chinese, mexican, canadian, european workers.

Those high paying manufacturing jobs spurred the economy. Companies thrived just servicing the big 3. All those jobs bye bye. I know some of it is technology and blabla but the rich/corporations/republicans/even blue dog democrats fucked us all. NAFTA. Mother fuckers. I'm cool with trade but unregulated free trade? Not so much. American workers were the envy of the world. People came here to start at the bottom and quickly work their way up. The GOP/Bush really fucked up the economy and NEVER admitted responsibility. It was always Clinton/Freddy Mac/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed/Obama. Suck my dick.

Might wanna get a CAT scan, too.