When you make the rich suffer, the poor will also suffer, and thus, Donnie is right.

When you make the rich suffer, the poor will also suffer, and thus, Donnie is right.

When the rich pay their fair share, the poor get the help they need, and thus, Da Donald AND Da Wuss are both wrong.

So what you have is wealth envy fueling wealth redistribution.

 

And then the rich and poor get placed in a whirlwind as they swap members so much so often

There are things to be paid for in our society and  the ideal people to pay for [most of] it is the wealthy.

And you don't think the wealthy do their share? The wealthy provide jobs, they donate to charity, they make positive contributions to the community... What more do you want, besides their checking account?

And you don't think the wealthy do their share?

No, not by a longshot.

We've had the greatest wealth redistribution in the past 100 years during these 7 years of hell.  Highest disparity since the robber barons.  Don't you think a little correction is in order?  Or do you take the world of a multi-millionaire who stands to benefit from the current policies continuing?

Or are you just stupid?

We've had the greatest wealth redistribution in the past 100 years during these 7 years of hell. 

So why are you complaining? Isn't wealth redistribution what you want? Isn't wealth redistribution your solution to wealth envy?

Highest disparity since the robber barons.  Don't you think a little correction is in order? 

I think so, and the solution lies in the FairTax

Or do you take the world of a multi-millionaire who stands to benefit from the current policies continuing?

The multi-millionaire isn't benefiting from a falling US dollar, I can tell you that.

Or are you just stupid?

No, I'm quite sure that I know what I'm talking about. ;)

Keep praying at the altar of the wealthy.  You have a Jesus-complex with them.  You are either very rich (doubtful) are incredibly dense (probable).  ; )

Gee, with all the outsourcing going on coupled with the massive rise in offshore accounts and fed reports that the rich corporations are avoiding several billion dollars in taxes I can't imagine why us po folk think the economy's in the shitter. I've really enjoyed spending all summer training some dude from poland how to maintain test scripts and use creative ideas to invent new mechanical solutions to complex problems. Gee, wonder what's next for me? A job picking vegetables at 1/100th of my current wage, or a job flipping burgers at 1/90th of my current wage? Decisions, decisions...

Don't be ridiculous, Snoopy.  No independent farmer can afford to pay you those wages.  And the corporate farms have so many ex-engineers applying for cabbage-picking jobs that you sure wouldn't be lucky enough to get one, not demanding that dream wage you quote.

Why don't you just start your own bank, or trade commodities?  Or speculate on oil or something?  Why waste time actually producing something?  That's no way to make money, silly.

No, I'm quite sure that I know what I'm talking about. ;)

A lot of people around here would disagree with you on that point, Wuss.

Most Americans are not as well informed as you.They rely on the propaganda of the conservative media.  They don't know that people like Trump hold over 45% of Americas wealth, which translates to over 17 trillion dollars. If people like Donald Trump had a social conscious they could pay off the national debt which they created.  That by the way is 9 trillion, and which they would have you believe was created by the welfare state.  In fact our government spends more money on corporate welfare than on social welfare. More money on the military and space exploration than on infrastructure and medical research.

the wealthy pay the most in taxes, but they also own a disproportionate share of the wealth, and it's getting even bigger.

And what's wrong with the rich having money? Who would you rather see use their money? The government? I'm sure you want John McCain spending rich people's money.

 

I'll trust the rich individual to spend his own money as he or she sees fit rather than our government.

Why do you hate poor people so much?

Where have I said I hate poor people?

 

Heck, I hope poor people become rich, I want them to be rich. But I want the rich to be rich too.

So what you have is wealth envy fueling wealth redistribution.

There's one.  I'll look for another.

Not all poor people have wealth envy and demand that the government redistribute wealth in their favor.

Ok.  Now that I seem to have your attention, maybe we can get somewhere.  Do you believe that the real life, happening right now, income redistribution favoring the wealthy has been good for the economy?

Isn't it more logical (and proven through historical analysis), that when the lowest among us prosper, everyone prospers.  Yet you whine that the rich are better off spending their money (on a 2nd yacht, or a 12th home, if your Gramps), than having a large group of poor people securing a decent place to live or providing for the basic needs of their families and maybe getting ahead in life, making more money, and then PAYING MORE TAXES.

That's the choice you have if you support continuing the welfare for the wealthy that's been going on for the past 7 years.

OK, I can agree with parts of it, but the government is not the answer.

Please, son. You wanna try to tell me that we should leave healthcare to the insurance industry? I would rather not entrust my health and the health of my family to a for profit company in which care is denied on the basis of cost/benefit analysis. I cannot conceive of a world in which my daughter could be denied life saving cancer treatment because she falls under a pre-existing condition clause. That's what we have today and it disgusts me that the for profit insurance industry could wantonly suck high premiums from my wallet only to back out of their obligation to me or my family when it counts because it will cut into their profits.

What would you do with guaranteed healthcare?

From Ferguson Foont:

Republicans whine, and Republicans bitch, the rich are too poor and the poor are too rich!

But I can think of a whole bunch of rich people demanding the government give them no bid contracts and tax breaks at the taxpayer's expense.

"The wealthy provide jobs"

that make them wealthy. You see, it's a two way street. 

"The wealthy provide jobs"

This is probably the most pervsive myth internalized by conservatives of ANY.  The wealthy do NOT provide jobs in a vacuum.  Jobs come into being in response to DEMAND.  If you make a product or provide a service and more people want what you offer than your employees can produce, then you create more jobs so you CAN provide that product or service)

More demand = more jobs...same demand = same number of jobs...NO demand =  fewer jobs

Give the buying public more money to spend and the demand will increase, and so will the jobs.  Give the buying public less money to spend and the jobs will - at best - stay the same, or at worst will DECREASE.

Reduce taxes for the non-rich and buying demand will INCREASE, jobs will INCREASE, and WOW!  The wealthy will ALSO make more profit.  WHY, OH WHY is that SO HARD to understand?

Da Wuss: NO rich person EVER gave me a job. I got every job I ever had on my own merits. Just because you are a failure who could not get a job but had to have one given to him by some rich twit doesn't mean everyone else is a loser too. In other words, speak for yourself. Such talk is an insult to the talented.

DAWUSS.....

I think we can now say that the last 28 years of Reaganomics or trickle down economics..... DOES NOT WORK!!! It didn't work in the 1920's, it isn't now!

I'm sick and tired of the rich and simpletons like you that can actually sit there with a straight face and claim that the rich paying a proper and fair tax on the money they earn is tantamount to wealth redistribution...

Thomas Jefferson and several of the other founding fathers nearly put an 'estate' tax on the wealth given from parents to kids at the beginnin, to bad they didn't..... to guarantee that an aristocracy would not form in this grand experiment of a country!

Think about this..... Upon the death of Paris Hiltons parents..... she becomes a multi-billionaire..... now what exactly will she have done to deserve it? Not a damn thing! That's what! She was lucky in birth... nothing more!

My wifes dad is 78... he has busted his ass to make ends meet his entire life... he is no slouch, never complains, but has so little to show for it all and we all kow it kills him, yet he doesn't grumble..... so exactly how can you defend the rich? Are you rich Dawuss?

The rich can afford to live on $7.5 million or billion as opposed to $10 million or billion ... if they can't.... all that money should be taken from them!

My wife and I make about $37,000 between us, we get about $3200 back in refund every year (because I purposely have the wifes and my employer take out an extra amount each paycheck to get it back the next spring at once) but the government uses the money I offer to them so that I know I'm paying my fair share of the use of the commons, they use it for the year and then pay it back to me the next and it keeps on going.... I figure I'm also paying about $7-8 thousand in various other taxes each year as well... so the government makes probably about $2-3 thousand a year from me.... and you know what.... I don't mind... I'm paying for my use of the commons....

A billionaire may pay more than I in whole dollars, but if his percentage is say 8% while mine is 15-18%.... he can afford to pay 10% more.... I can not! Besides... its also quite possible that his use of the commons is more a burden to the commons than mine is.... his many cars, bigger house(s), persoanl jet, etc, etc.....

I love the idea that the Hiltons have made it big! Paris' dad is the perfect example of the American dream and I hold high regards for his business savvy, even if I don't like some of the things he may have done to achieve them, he did make it...... but how fair is it that Paris, as a result of the 'estate' tax (or as the rightwing likes to call it... the death tax) being removed is looking at being an overnight billionaire simply by virtue of being born into a wealthy family? How can this be healthy for a democratic republic?

For some reason the rich love to use the 'commons' but hate the idea of having to help pay for them...... I have little sympathy and zero patients for the rich and their pathetic defenders!!

so the government makes probably about $2-3 thousand a year from me

My math is off..... it should be about $4-5 thousand a year from me.......

Outstanding, Capt.

Oh, yeah.... that trickled on economics stuff, right?

It all depends on how you define the word "suffer". I guess McGrumpy would "suffer" if he only had five houses to live in. Poor McGrumpy.

Double and triple the taxes? Where the hell did he get those figures from? That's a 100% - 200% increase. I'm assuming he was just exaggerating a bit.

can you imagine having to sit around with those guys at lunch?

I'll bet they talk about broads, right? And which one cost the most and delivered the best.

Yes he was.

The image is a very powerful one, and should be on billboards everywhere.

Where did you get this idea that the uber rich are hurting?

Don't even try to equate the suffering of the working man struggling to make ends meet with the temporary financial downturn of of a man who has to forego buying a second yacht.

There's no comparison.

With all of that financial strain its no wonder they can't remember how many houses they have.

The logical extension that liberals refuse to acknowledge is when that man has to forego buying that second yacht, what also goes away are the worker's jobs necessary to build that yacht.  The law of unintended consequences.

And not to mention that the rich person also can provide jobs using the additional money he has.

 

 

When was the last time you worked for a poor person?

And not to mention that the rich person also can provide jobs using the additional money he has.

What wonderful, wonderful people.

Gee, what would happen, if those poor people suddenly decided that they didn't want to work for the rich guy...? 

 

They would work for another rich guy? They acquired enough assets that can be used as capital? They retire?

Why do you assume that only rich people provide jobs?

That's one of the biggest problems with the right. Rather than see workers as people who produce value through their work they see them as receiving presents from the corporate Santa.

That's not what he said.  Dawuss said that those of means provide the jobs, do the hiring. Of course they do, how can someone of little financial means pay someone with something he doesn't have?  It makes absolutely no sense.  What will he pay the with?  Jumping beans.

how can someone of little financial means pay someone with something he doesn't have?

How do people buy houses?

Can you honestly not follow?  We are talking about employment, jobs, not buying houses.  Lord.....

Just answer that question and something may pop in your head as to how a poor person can start a business.

What question?  We were talking about hiring, and you brought up buying a house. Duh.....sorry to burst your bubble but just because you ask a ridiculously irrelevant and off topic question, I am not compelled to follow you.  

You're not following what's going on.  This started with me saying "Why do you assume that only rich people provide jobs?"

Wrong again, Tommy (and you've been relatively sane recently).

Rich people don't always do the hiring.  I'm not rich.  In the mid-to late 90's I had on average 3-4 employees.  Now I have none.  Empirical evidence, sure it is, but I see it every day with my colleagues/friends.

I was once a journalist.  Was paid like crap.  Then I got to wondering, how did the owner get rich?  By hiring non-union people desperate for a job.  In other words, the rich and powerful (with no regulation or unions) take advantage of the poor and disadvantaged, Dawuss. Always have, always will.  And you are deifying them.  Pathetic. 

And unions also allow for ineptitude. Why the heck do you think our government schools are the way they are? 2 words: Teacher's Unions

You say teacher's union; I say the republicans.

That's right, blame the teachers.  My brother is union rep for his school and they have to fight all the time for an extra nickle to keep up with inflation. 

Why do you hate teachers so much?  And why to you hate worker protection so much?  Did you graduate from a public school?  Were you beaten up repeatedly on the playground?  <smiley face>

My daughter is a teaher in GWB's home town.

She spends between $1500 and $2000 of her own,un-reimbursed, money on school supplies for her kids. She's got several masters degrees and is working on her third and works for a very low salary for someone with her level of education. 

That is horrible.  But the problem is with those that spend and allocate the money for teachers and schools, most likely in ridiculous administrative baloney with unnecessary administrators failing in their duty to properly fund their schools and teachers.  And all the more reason for local control so your daughter, who hopefully is screaming to those that are wasting the money, can find out what is going on.  Good luck to her.

Wrong Tommy.

One of the largest land owners in the city is a non profit University that does not pay much in real estate taxes. Much of it's property is tax exempt. The city provides police and fire protection for the school and students but does not get reimbursed.

The manufacturing base is long gone. The city consistently ranks among the nations poorest. 

That's right, blame the teachers.  My brother is union rep for his school and they have to fight all the time for an extra nickle to keep up with inflation. 

When and where did I blame the qualified and competent teachers? I blame the teachers unions and their defense of the inept teachers and their ineffective uses of their far reaching influence and power.

And why to you hate worker protection so much?

I hate protecting the inept worker. The competent and qualified need no protection.

 

Did you graduate from a public school?  Were you beaten up repeatedly on the playground?  <smiley face>

Yep, I graduated from a government high school, and attended US government schools from 2-12 grade. And no, I wasn't beaten up, but I was made fun of and bullied quite a bit throughout school, up until high school, when I was a social outcast.

Hate to break it to you, but there are inept workers in every profession.  And personally, I cannot remember ANY teacher (my own or my friends/relatives) had that could be considered "inept".  So your argument is a non-starter and basically worthless.

You remind me of this study I read in which kids were observed from about first or second grade up into adulthood. And do you know what the study yielded? That the childhood complainers and whiners grew up to be Republicans. Whatever, that's beside the point. I just can't stand a damn whiner like you who blames teachers for bad curriculum. No Child Left Behind is a joke, it focuses on tests when we should be letting our teachers focus on learning.

I can't stand a complainer who, like you, gripes about the only people who ever fought to bring a better life to working Americans: labor unions. The labor movement paid for the privileges that you take for granted with their blood and their lives. Everytime you are paid for overtime, you can remember and thank mother Jones. If you work in a safe place, if you enjoy health benefits and decent wagess, have a pension plan you can thank the martyred unionists that died so you can have a better working life.

It's time to grow the fork up.

We have so many problems today because people like you were told that every solution to all of the worlds ills can be solved with one, two or at the most three word answers.

Notice I didn't say people like you "think"...

You've already told us on several occasions that you don't think but parrot what your father or Rush tells you. 

You've already told us on several occasions that you don't think but parrot what your father or Rush tells you.

 

There's several things wrong here -

1) I do think for myself

2) I never met or knew my father, so HTF can I parrot W/ETF he says?

3) I do admit I listened to Rush a bit blindly growing up, I've listened to him less and less over the years, and have gone for moderate voices like Neal Boortz and Lou Dobbs. I dabbled in Hannity and Savage for a time, but Hannity is Rush with a social life, and Savage, ... well, I don't think he needs much of an explanation.

 

And if I was a GOP wingnut/hack/stooge why would I be coming here, much less criticizing conservative talk show hosts for misinformation and the like?

Someone with a name very similar to yours was around a few weeks back telling us how his father had told him all about the Clinton years.

Sorry, I thought it was you. 

I do think for myself

No you don't.  It's always "this right-wing host said this and this right-wing host said that."

And for you it's this left-wing host said this and this left-wing host said that. We use things that we are exposed to to help form our (hopefully intelligent) opinion.

And for you it's this left-wing host said this and this left-wing host said that.

Show me one post (I've been posting here for years now).  That's not how I operate.

Neither do I.

I doubt that I could find a left wing talk show on the radio if I tried. I listen to music or the news, not opinion. And I weigh what passes for news.

I don't see the left as being led around by the nose like the right. Sorry if anyone's insulted, but if you form opinions based on what Limbaugh, Hannity or Boortz says, you need to get out more. 

Why do you think you health care is the way it is? because of unions?

Deregulation of the Insurance industry, started by Reagan.

Show me where I said only rich people always do the hiring.  Grab your own reigns of sanity.  I said that people of financial means are capable of hiring others.  Someone who has no financial means to pay anyone is hardly capable of hiring anyone.

I can't believe this is even a point of contention. Some of you will argue anything...... 

Rich people.  People with "financial means".  Sounds pretty much the same to me.  Nice try at deflection.

Yeah, everybody with financial means is rich.  If you want to run with that bit of lunacy, be my guest.  Nice owning of your lie about what I said.  

I stand by my "lie".  And you crying about people arguing "anything" is rich.

I apologize. I misread your post.  But anyway,  you can get a loan to start a business and my father of modest means did it this year.  He has five employees.

"Why do you assume that only rich people provide jobs?"

 

I'll ask you again:

 

"When was the last time you worked for a poor person?"

"When was the last time you worked for a poor person?"

I worked for a jewelry company after school in the late nineties.  The owner made a modest income.

Many small business owners make modest incomes, but they are not who Dawuss was referring to when he said poor.  

Dawuss is that you?

I work for poor people every time I vote for Progressives (there ain't many of 'em.) I work for poor people every time I pay my taxes.

I worked for a poor perrson for most of my life (me).

The economy only grows and benefits all when capital and labor have some kind of balance.

That balance disappeared with the advent of the trickle down theory of "Voodoo Economics".

 

When? I'm doing that right now. It's called a small business and I'm the owner. And once my main source of income completes the transfer to ODM's I'm gonna be even poorer as a self employed small business owner.

Old Doddering McCain?

Here dawuss, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret that's been happening in the last eight years under Bush. It's called ODM. When you learn what that means get back to me about your statement on rich folks creating jobs.

And not to mention that the rich person also can provide jobs using the additional money he has.

Or he can downsize and try to do with less people and increase his/her wealth.

And what, my friend, is wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with greed, selfishness and being callous; just own up to it.

"Define 'greed'." - Neal Boortz

Someone who wants more and more and doesn't care who they destroy in the process.

So in other words, you are greedy and envious of the rich man/girl. What have you done to get yourself to his or her level? Now compare that to all you've done about wishing he or she would come down to yours.

So in other words, you are greedy and envious of the rich man/girl.

Why would I be envious of someone who is greedy, selfish and callous?  I loathe them and don't want to be associate with that group of people.

And what, my friend, is wrong with that?

You would have fit in nicely in feudal Europe.  But unless you're the Duke, you're just a nameless peasant.  But don't worry.  The Democrats will bring you and your clueless co-horts along with us when we start fixing the wreckage.

So you are an elitist?

No, I prefer pica.

Tommy, you're full of it. All the good manufacturing jobs are leaving the country so that yahoo can afford to buy his yacht.

The only purpose the ideology of social Darwinism serves is to tell the guy who lost his job to cheaper overseas labor is, "tough luck, life ain't fair.''

You took my point and rode it off the rail Round. I am not talking about that and you know it.  You implied that the rich guy could get by on one yacht, and not two.  Of course he could.  But the consequences of him not being able to afford another yacht trickles down, yes it does, to those who made that yacht......or anything else that the rich man doesn't buy.  If that rich man decides that he won't stay a swanky hotel and opts out of if, then what happens to the bellhops, deskclerks and other staff at that swanky hotel when business falls off........they get laid off, and poof, more unintended consequences.

You know exactly what I meant.  You can be all for taxing the rich more, but unless you admit the effects on lower income people because of it, your arguments are either naive, or disingenuous. 

If that rich man decides that he won't stay a swanky hotel and opts out of if, then what happens to the bellhops, deskclerks and other staff at that swanky hotel when business falls off........they get laid off, and poof, more unintended consequences.

What percentage of the wealth generated by the hotel actually gets to these bellhops, desk clerks and others?

What?  Your question made no sense.  I am talking about jobs, when there is a work slowdown, jobs go first.  When the swanky hotel's occupancy rates/revenues drop the hotel needs to cut expenses, and the first of those expenses is payroll.

Those guys make little to begin with so the company can afford to not only keep them on but to raise their salaries even if there's a downturn.

If you believe that happens, then you are seriously living in lalalalala land.

If they had a union it would happen.

Amen Loonz.

Give people the opportunity to organize and stand up together and protect themselves against the whims of the market fundamentalists in their race to the bottom of the wage barrel and shit will turn around. It will create that virtuous cycle in which people have real money in their pockets to put continuously back into the economy, not some chump change tax cut of a couple hundred dollars that might buy a month or two of groceries.

And the con argument is ridiculous on several levels, they'll toss out that trickle down dogma, yeah I'm pointing this at you Tommy, as if they are utterly ignorant to the reality that it does not work. All these tax cuts, all this increased worker productivity and we still have stagnant wages and rising costs. We have a job growth rate that a snail could out pace. And we have an infrastructure that is falling down around our ears, yet the cons would cut infrastructure investment and give stewardship of our commonwealth to their bastard crony pals so they can suck even more off of us.

WRONG.

What goes away is the yacht builder's booking for that second yacht, and a hole opens in the production schedule.  The yacht builder can move up someone else's yacht in the schedule while their sales staff continues to drum up new business.

And what if their sales staff's customers are reduced because of less buyers in the market?  They too are out of a job.  

Liberals can be all for soaking the rich more, but it's pretty pathetic that they refuse to admit the effects on other, less affluent people as well. 

Nice try Tommy. When the big fancy schmancy home theater projects dried up here (even in Telluride, go figure), NONE of us got laid off, we found another market for our skills, our owner made less, but we were rewarded for our loyalty during the heydays. That is why I will never work for someone who is not at the shop/office before me, leaves after me and personally hands me my paycheck with a big thankyou!

I was mecislessly screwed by the Disney and Home Depot corporations, treated worse than a leaky hose.

The luxury yacht market is global, and does not depend solely on wealthy American tax payers.

Any luxury yacht company that builds in America and limits its clientèle to strictly American multi-millionaires is pretty much doomed from the start.  It is a niche industry that targets only the very wealthy, and only a segment of the very wealthy are into yachting to begin with and an even smaller segment are  willing to partake in luxury yachting because of its enormous residual cost, regardless of how little they are paying in taxes.

 

That's right, because there are no such things as small businesses, freelancers, coops, etc.

Businesses don't pay taxes. The customer picks up the tab

Food prices are going up (a tax on restaurants) and prices have not gone up because restaurants want to stay competitive.  They absorb the cost, but can't fire their employees or else they can't deliver good service and turn customers off.

See? it's called a free market.  

Suffer? Please do describe the suffering that you think Obama's proposed tax plan will cause to the wealthiest Americans.

The description is self-explanatory

A phrase usually used by someone who can't explain it.

And when you consolidate the wealth among very few and increase poverty, the rich will lose their heads.  The poor have very little, the middle class just a little more, and when you take away their feeling of gain and force them towards increased debt and poverty, they begin to lose what little they have left.  If they have nothing left to lose, then what is to keep them from turning against the rich that took it away to begin with?

Think France 1789.  No class lives in a bubble.  The rich are rich because of the classes beneath them, and if you want to keep those people content, do not cross them.  The lower classes allow the rich to be rich through patronage of their businesses.  Taxes are what the rich must pay for their privilege in society.  It ensures that the lower classes can stay afloat through their government to in order to keep the rich in check.  Wealth and power comes at a price -- if you don't work for the good of the people, they will turn against you and take you out.  Its in a business man's best interest not to screw over his customers.

Add Donald Trump to the ever growing list of conservative misinformers that need a little slap-on-the-wrist challenging from the Fox & Friends heavyweights.  

Well, you also have to remember..... in Trumpy and McGrumpy World, you're middle class if you make less than 5 million a year.

maybe Trump means everybody he knows will have to pay double and triple the taxes of people making 1/10th of what they make.

You know if you increased Trump's tax burden to 99%, his net income would be greater than 99%+ of Americans before taxes.

Isn't it odd that, after WWII, as the United States became the industrial leader of the world, and was creating jobs left and right, the tax rate on the wealthy was much higher than it is now? How did they pull off that little magic trick? Now that they enjoy one of the lowest tax rates in the world, our manufacturing jobs are disappearing, and middle class income is stagnant? Where's all that trickle?

Stop that, Nerzog ! It makes it so hard for the suckers to go on with their dreamy worship of their heroes.

And aren't you the same people that cry about us participating in a "Global Economy"?

KILMEADE: Who's going to make you richer? Who's going to make the country better?

It's getting late Kilmeade/Dawuss. Don't you have to get up early tomorrow?

When Trump says "everybody"  he really means "me" and when he says "double or triple" he really means a modest increase.

Maybe if Jr. Bush didn't screw the economy up so bad with his bad decisions (especially the ridiculously expensive Iraq failure) then we wouldn't be needing to increase taxes on ANYONE. I would rather increase taxes on SUV-driving, suburban, FOX-watching, Prada-wearing Bush-voters than the poor and middle-classes. Who cares what Trump says anyways?

here's some nearly on topic humour to lighten things up. But I would like to say that anyone who thinks a system where one human controls more wealth and consumes more resources than the other 99.99 % is really out of touch with human history.

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1454layashes

Dawuss is the poster child for the example of the sort of mouth breathing morons that can be relyed on so that the rich can to continue bending poor people over, greasing them up and aiming for penetration.

 

The rich people are rich BECAUSE THEY DON'T SPEND MONEY. And when l say that l mean that, they don't say "Hey, my guys have worked hard i'll pay for something for them." It's not about how many boats or fast cars or shiny pieces of jewellry they buy. How much (just for an example of a large company in the US that l have heard and read more than a bit about) money do those who own Wal Mart spend on their staff on say health care? With all the profits they make how much above minimum wage are their poorest employees paid? Where do they source the materials for the clothing that they sell? Is everything at Wal Mart made in the US? If they are making so much money, and their profits show that they are, why are they so against a bill that makes it easier to unionize their staff and protects their pay and rights?

 

Unions, both in the US and the UK were created to PROTECT the workers from exploitation by bosses who would work them harder and harder for less and less while reaping the biggest profits for themselves. Every one wants to better themselves but it amazing to me that when you have seen the money of the rich increase by hundreds of percent over the last decade that ANYONE who isn't in that group doesn't stop and say "hold on a moment, maybe we should look at this"   

 

 Look at the fight for the Estate Tax. This is from USAToday.com 28/05/2005:

 

But pro-tax groups and those who benefit from the tax are mounting a counterattack. They include life insurance companies that profit from estate tax planning as well as charities that reap donations from large estates. Citing historical figures such as Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie, pro-tax activists argue against the concentration of wealth. "This is not a country of inherited wealth. This is a country of earned wealth," says Steve Ricchetti of the Coalition for America's Priorities, which is seeking to preserve the estate tax.

Citing a Congressional Budget Office study, they note that very few family-owned businesses and farms would be affected under the $3.5 million exemption level set to take effect in 2009. And they say repealing the tax after 2010 could cost more than $70 billion a year in today's dollars, resulting in spending cuts or a larger federal budget deficit.

 

Does anyone who posts here really want to say that the US is a country of inherited wealth? That those who do manage to make it should watch while the children of those who did fight and use their brains to make their money sit back, doing nothing and reap the benefits of others hard work?

 

I'm not saying that all rich people are bad, but l am amazed at the reaction when they do something good. Look at the media reaction to Warren Buffett's decision on what happens to his money when he dies. Not all rich people are b'stards. But you have to admit, they had to be a bit of a b'stard to become rich.

     I hate the fact that they keep saying that Obama is raising taxes on everyone. The chart posted earlier is all the people need to see. It says it all. 

    And where did this idea that paying taxes is so horrible anyways? I can see how the average person or below, who may be struggling to make ends meet, I can see how they would be weary of more money out of their pocket going to the government, when they need it just to survive. I understand that. But do they not realize that the Democrats are the ones trying to keep that money in their pockets, as much as they can, and the Republicans are the ones who are trying to make more, percentagewise, from them? I cannot see how anyone who is poor to middle class would support the Republican tax system.

    And history has shown us two things that are unarguable. Trickle-down Economics does not work. It is not sound, and the claims you hear about how it benefits everyone simply are not true. In fact, history has shown the opposite. The second thing is, more taxes on the highest income earners, and lowest taxes on the poorest has shown throughout history to benefit everyone. And taking money out of the pockets of the richest is not, philosophically, automatically hurting them or not benefitting them. Sorry, but that is just an assumption with no basis.

    To Dawuss (and Boortz),

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Selfish: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

That pretty much shuts that argument down forever.

    There are plenty of rich people who have no problem paying more taxes. Not all rich people are Republicans, for example. So, how can they possibly come to such a drastically different conclusion as the Republican rich?

    And to answer your comments about your version of Market distribution of wealth. Are you seriously arguing that spending the million-plus dollars on a yacht, or whatever other luxury item you want, is going to benefit the economy (or just that company) more than using that money to help struggling families with food, or shelter, or healthcare? There is no way you can actually believe that. No one, unless just blinded by greed would advocate that kind of America.

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

And who exactly decides the "more of something that is needed?"  You? Govt?

I do. You do. Government does. Society does. We all work together.

If tjhat's what you think, then fine. I believe only the company shareholders should.

Yeah, we know you don't want anyone but rich folks telling rich folks when enough is enough. You're such an elitist hog.

Maybe we could come up with a scale. The cutoff could be when a person achieves the lifestyle of a Roman Emperor, or something more modest, like a Medieval European monarch or a Gilded Age Robber Baron. Seems reasonable that, after a person buys his eighth house, he doesn't really need any more tax cuts.

If tjhat's what you think, then fine. I believe only the company shareholders should.

    That's your opinion. But I would submit to you that I think society is the better judge for this, as the shareholders tend to only focus on the bottom line, regardless of anyone or anything else, which seems to fit the definition of selfish, which most people would consider immoral at some level. On the other hand, society looks at other factors, not just what is good for the shareholders, such as if its good for their employees, if its good for the community, if its good for the environment, if it takes the economy in a good direction for everyone, not just the wealthy.

    If I had to choose which path to take to make decisions about my company, it seems more ethical and respoinsible to take the second path, and see that good business is more than just what is good for the bottom line. Just my opinion.

Well put UKO. Even the Fed Gov has concluded trickle down is a bust for their revinues. Wages have pretty much stagnated for the last seven plus years. Jobs went overseas cause the american worker costs the companies to much.

An agricultural analgy. They take the crop and do nothing to support the soil which produces the crop. The soil stops producing and they go elsewhere to find a new crop to exploit till they again exhaust the soil.

I don't think this type of operation sustains its supporting population. And that seems to be where market forces will always go if there is nothing that prevents them from doing so.