Wow Kuzi, before you blow a gasket, here is the full text of what you said, and what I responded to. This cut and paste editing is really getting old Kuzi
the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help.
There is a difference between you offended me and that was an offensive comment. I am pretty sure you know that as well, so why the Theatrics? You now challenge me to prove your statments untrue? Why, I assume it is what you believe, so for you it must be true. That doesn't make it a definative statement for the world at large however. I believe it is customary to prove statements that you make are true, if only to protect your credibility. If what you call discussion is to say anything I want no matter how rediculous, while challenging others to prove me wrong, then it is me who is not interested in continuing. Surely we all have a certain responsibility to keep things reasonable, and not to allow extreme statements be the starting off point of a real and honest discussion.
Please do me the favor of not blaming me for your departure from the political forums if you do indeed decide not to post here in the future. With what has been said in in these posts in the past, there is NO WAY that this thread is the reason for your decision. I don't deserve the credit or the blame for that. Man up and own your own decisions bro, c'mon.
if the corporate tax rate here wasnt the highest in the world this really wouldnt be an issue would it? then we wouldnt be shipping jobs overseas where it is cheaper to do business.
this was a bi-partisan effort not to raise taxes. the democrats right now dont need a single republican to do anything. they have control over the house, the senate, and the presidency.
want more jobs here? lower the government imposed cost of doing business (taxes) here.
really? Doesn't seem to be the highest. Maybe if the goal of companies in the US was to make money and growth it wouldn't be a problem. If a company wants to pay less taxes let them leave, we don't need 'em. Others will fill their place. But don't take jobs away from good workers, fix the system so they get tax breaks on doing it, and stay. Oh and lets not forget when these companies you defend so much want to save a few bucks because we charge them so much, there's a huge slew of safety violations and poorer products.
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
actually, the founders were rich white guys trying to hold on to their slaves and money.
if its the corruption you are talking about, then see my next comment.
phobicsquirrel:
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
did you miss the part in my question where i said "non-rights-violating rich?" i think you did. if they are actually stealing then i have a problem with it. if they are not, then i have no problem at all with that graph. you keep saying the rich steal from the poor. for the most part, they do not. there are no rights being violated. if they want to keep getting richer... fine. let them as long as they dont violate the rights of others.
most rich people keep getting richer by investing wisely, running businesses well, and making good decisions. they do not do it through slavery, theft, or whatever you think it is they are doing. getting a tax cut is not "stealing from the poor" it it letting them keep their money that they worked hard for.
lol, yeah you are right about the plantation owners and such..
See this is where I think we differ on this..
Most of the very rich people in this country got their money from inheritance and or rigging the system. The Bailout what was done before Obama took office was done to save huge banks (many of whom are trans-national). These banks took our tax dollars to save them from going under thus they got paid for F'ing up and even gave themselves bonus's with our money. As well as they bought more banks to make themselves even bigger, never mind about moving credit to people. You see it's not as simple as, oh he earns 1million dollars he is owed all his money. It's that he is taxed lower than somone who makes much less, as Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more in taxes.
It's more of the behind the scenes. You've seen movies where say a mobster is paying of judges and congress to allow him to get away with being against the law. Well think of this in a much larger scale. Many of these people who operate the biggest business's in the world are these people. From BP to Shell, to Halibertan and the cigerette companies. They have so much money that they are able to litterly make what they do legal even when it isn't. The crap wall street has pulled for some time by making bets on bets on bets on what ever.. From Oil companies spilling oil and chemicals causing huge harm and breaking many laws but only having to pay a small amount and getting away with something that would land a citzen in jail. Even to them being able to use un limited amounts of money to fund elections even out of state. The top elite own this country. Dem's/Rep's, it doesn't matter much however at least there are a handful of dems that stand up to them.
No I don't know if every republican is this way but I go off what votes are cast and for the last 2 years, well almost two years they have voted against pretty much anything that would put any dents into the corporate elite.
Cash for Clunkers - eh, yeah but the ONLY AMERICAN was stripped out
Bail Outs for Big Banks - yeah
Loan to keep US Auto Plants open - no, can't do that
Unemployment benefits - no, no, no - their lazy
Breaking Tax incentives to move US jobs out of country - NO
Huge Tax breaks for small business - NO and then they go out and sell that they are for them and obama isn't...
Environment - hell no, nothing can impede big oil
BP disaster having to pay - no 20 billion dollars is a hold up, and those drilling contracts need to be reinstated, who cares about our water
Gay/Civil Rights - eh, it'll hurt the military
infrastructure bills - HELL NO, workers don't need money
Tax Cuts - only if super rich people get it too!
health care - oh, well we get govt healthcare, but the people don't need it, our friends in the insurance industry are making too much money with it.
What I'm trying to get at is this, MONEY is owning our lives and our govt. What do think life would be like if corporations and the super rich didn't influence our govt and lives? Well that would never happen but what if? I mean I'm sure we would have better air, better forms of technology, less sickness, better education, longer lives, and a better environment. I don't advocate taking any money from people to give to others, but I have to say, when people have to work 2 jobs and still make below the poverty line something is wrong. Not everyone will be rich, nor should they be. But what there should be is something to say, well I make enough to support my family and have a decent life. However when this countries wages have stalled for some 30 years and the super rich gets richer something is severely wrong. And why this is, the money in govt given by the super rich is. What is a millionaire going to do with an extra 100,00? or a billionaire with 1,000,000 they get off the top? nothing really. What is a guy like me that makes under 100,000 a year going to do with an extra couple of gran? A lot more. We live in a economy driven on consumption, however the middle class has given all it's got and more, and now credit is likely or already has gone. If anyone needs money to spend it's the middle class, otherwise the 2 percent at the top won't have what they have for long.
My point would be that the bail outs, which yes were passed under a Republican President, were passed under a Democrat controlled congress. Many more Dems voted for the bailouts than Reps...
Wow Kuzi, before you blow a gasket, here is the full text of what you said, and what I responded to. This cut and paste editing is really getting old Kuzi
the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help.
There is a difference between you offended me and that was an offensive comment. I am pretty sure you know that as well, so why the Theatrics? You now challenge me to prove your statments untrue? Why, I assume it is what you believe, so for you it must be true. That doesn't make it a definative statement for the world at large however. I believe it is customary to prove statements that you make are true, if only to protect your credibility. If what you call discussion is to say anything I want no matter how rediculous, while challenging others to prove me wrong, then it is me who is not interested in continuing. Surely we all have a certain responsibility to keep things reasonable, and not to allow extreme statements be the starting off point of a real and honest discussion.
Please do me the favor of not blaming me for your departure from the political forums if you do indeed decide not to post here in the future. With what has been said in in these posts in the past, there is NO WAY that this thread is the reason for your decision. I don't deserve the credit or the blame for that. Man up and own your own decisions bro, c'mon.
I do blame the right for it. Look at they way they vote and what they stand for. It shows. it's fact and that's it. This last year shows it very well.
I don't have anything against the rich, I do have a problem when so few people control so much of the wealth of this nation then contort govt to giving them more money off the backs of the commons. It's like one of the very foundations of which this country was started, to get away from this. Though sadly it'll always be this way though the field needs to be more or less even.
actually, the founders were rich white guys trying to hold on to their slaves and money.
if its the corruption you are talking about, then see my next comment.
phobicsquirrel:
Why do you defend and or vote for people who want to keep people that are already so rich that they keep getting richer while stealing from the bottom 98 percent or so's well being?
did you miss the part in my question where i said "non-rights-violating rich?" i think you did. if they are actually stealing then i have a problem with it. if they are not, then i have no problem at all with that graph. you keep saying the rich steal from the poor. for the most part, they do not. there are no rights being violated. if they want to keep getting richer... fine. let them as long as they dont violate the rights of others.
most rich people keep getting richer by investing wisely, running businesses well, and making good decisions. they do not do it through slavery, theft, or whatever you think it is they are doing. getting a tax cut is not "stealing from the poor" it it letting them keep their money that they worked hard for.
lol, yeah you are right about the plantation owners and such..
See this is where I think we differ on this..
Most of the very rich people in this country got their money from inheritance and or rigging the system. The Bailout what was done before Obama took office was done to save huge banks (many of whom are trans-national). These banks took our tax dollars to save them from going under thus they got paid for F'ing up and even gave themselves bonus's with our money. As well as they bought more banks to make themselves even bigger, never mind about moving credit to people. You see it's not as simple as, oh he earns 1million dollars he is owed all his money. It's that he is taxed lower than somone who makes much less, as Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more in taxes.
It's more of the behind the scenes. You've seen movies where say a mobster is paying of judges and congress to allow him to get away with being against the law. Well think of this in a much larger scale. Many of these people who operate the biggest business's in the world are these people. From BP to Shell, to Halibertan and the cigerette companies. They have so much money that they are able to litterly make what they do legal even when it isn't. The crap wall street has pulled for some time by making bets on bets on bets on what ever.. From Oil companies spilling oil and chemicals causing huge harm and breaking many laws but only having to pay a small amount and getting away with something that would land a citzen in jail. Even to them being able to use un limited amounts of money to fund elections even out of state. The top elite own this country. Dem's/Rep's, it doesn't matter much however at least there are a handful of dems that stand up to them.
No I don't know if every republican is this way but I go off what votes are cast and for the last 2 years, well almost two years they have voted against pretty much anything that would put any dents into the corporate elite.
Cash for Clunkers - eh, yeah but the ONLY AMERICAN was stripped out
Bail Outs for Big Banks - yeah
Loan to keep US Auto Plants open - no, can't do that
Unemployment benefits - no, no, no - their lazy
Breaking Tax incentives to move US jobs out of country - NO
Huge Tax breaks for small business - NO and then they go out and sell that they are for them and obama isn't...
Environment - hell no, nothing can impede big oil
BP disaster having to pay - no 20 billion dollars is a hold up, and those drilling contracts need to be reinstated, who cares about our water
Gay/Civil Rights - eh, it'll hurt the military
infrastructure bills - HELL NO, workers don't need money
Tax Cuts - only if super rich people get it too!
health care - oh, well we get govt healthcare, but the people don't need it, our friends in the insurance industry are making too much money with it.
What I'm trying to get at is this, MONEY is owning our lives and our govt. What do think life would be like if corporations and the super rich didn't influence our govt and lives? Well that would never happen but what if? I mean I'm sure we would have better air, better forms of technology, less sickness, better education, longer lives, and a better environment. I don't advocate taking any money from people to give to others, but I have to say, when people have to work 2 jobs and still make below the poverty line something is wrong. Not everyone will be rich, nor should they be. But what there should be is something to say, well I make enough to support my family and have a decent life. However when this countries wages have stalled for some 30 years and the super rich gets richer something is severely wrong. And why this is, the money in govt given by the super rich is. What is a millionaire going to do with an extra 100,00? or a billionaire with 1,000,000 they get off the top? nothing really. What is a guy like me that makes under 100,000 a year going to do with an extra couple of gran? A lot more. We live in a economy driven on consumption, however the middle class has given all it's got and more, and now credit is likely or already has gone. If anyone needs money to spend it's the middle class, otherwise the 2 percent at the top won't have what they have for long.
My point would be that the bail outs, which yes were passed under a Republican President, were passed under a Democrat controlled congress. Many more Dems voted for the bailouts than Reps...
Sad I know. Trouble is everyone acted too quickly and didn't take time to see what they were voting for.
anyway I didn't want to argue, i just wanted to post that graph since there is such an up roar about this thing. I'm a minority here on my stance so no point in getting into it once again.
Most of the very rich people in this country got their money from inheritance and or rigging the system.
False According to Thomas J. Stanley's book, "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," only 20% of millionaires inherited their riches. The other 80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own. Many millionaires simply worked, saved, and lived within their means to generate their wealth -- think accountants and managers: regular people going to work every day. Most millionaires didn't get their riches overnight when a rich relative died -- they worked for the money.
phobicsquirrel:
The Bailout what was done before Obama took office was done to save huge banks (many of whom are trans-national). These banks took our tax dollars to save them from going under thus they got paid for F'ing up and even gave themselves bonus's with our money. As well as they bought more banks to make themselves even bigger, never mind about moving credit to people.
You see it's not as simple as, oh he earns 1million dollars he is owed all his money. It's that he is taxed lower than somone who makes much less, as Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more in taxes.
It's more of the behind the scenes. You've seen movies where say a mobster is paying of judges and congress to allow him to get away with being against the law. Well think of this in a much larger scale. Many of these people who operate the biggest business's in the world are these people. From BP to Shell, to Halibertan and the cigerette companies. They have so much money that they are able to litterly make what they do legal even when it isn't. The crap wall street has pulled for some time by making bets on bets on bets on what ever.. From Oil companies spilling oil and chemicals causing huge harm and breaking many laws but only having to pay a small amount and getting away with something that would land a citzen in jail. Even to them being able to use un limited amounts of money to fund elections even out of state. The top elite own this country. Dem's/Rep's, it doesn't matter much however at least there are a handful of dems that stand up to them.
the bail out was a huge mistake. i agree with you there.
what you are talking about here is corruption issues, not taxation issues. what i am talking aobut is taxation issues.
phobicsquirrel:
No I don't know if every republican is this way but I go off what votes are cast and for the last 2 years, well almost two years they have voted against pretty much anything that would put any dents into the corporate elite.
Cash for Clunkers - eh, yeah but the ONLY AMERICAN was stripped out
Bail Outs for Big Banks - yeah
Loan to keep US Auto Plants open - no, can't do that
Unemployment benefits - no, no, no - their lazy
Breaking Tax incentives to move US jobs out of country - NO
Huge Tax breaks for small business - NO and then they go out and sell that they are for them and obama isn't...
Environment - hell no, nothing can impede big oil
BP disaster having to pay - no 20 billion dollars is a hold up, and those drilling contracts need to be reinstated, who cares about our water
Gay/Civil Rights - eh, it'll hurt the military
infrastructure bills - HELL NO, workers don't need money
Tax Cuts - only if super rich people get it too!
health care - oh, well we get govt healthcare, but the people don't need it, our friends in the insurance industry are making too much money with it.
there are too many issues to break down here. many of them have less to do with taxes and more to do with corruption. many of them have to do with violating rights. many of them have to do with past success rates leading us to believe it wont work in the future. there are many arguments here. if we are going to talk taxes, then talk taxes. you are just all over the board here.
phobicsquirrel:
What I'm trying to get at is this, MONEY is owning our lives and our govt. What do think life would be like if corporations and the super rich didn't influence our govt and lives? Well that would never happen but what if? I mean I'm sure we would have better air, better forms of technology, less sickness, better education, longer lives, and a better environment.
you are asking a question that people have been asking since government was first created. the basic question is this: what if there were no evil people? its just a pipe dream.there are evil people. the job of a good, just government is to uphold the rights of the people. right now the government is violating rights. and its sad.
phobicsquirrel:
I don't advocate taking any money from people to give to others, but I have to say, when people have to work 2 jobs and still make below the poverty line something is wrong.
what are you advocating then? just taking the money from the non-rights violating rich? im not sure what you are getting at here. taxing them more isnt going to help you any more.
phobicsquirrel:
Not everyone will be rich, nor should they be. But what there should be is something to say, well I make enough to support my family and have a decent life. However when this countries wages have stalled for some 30 years and the super rich gets richer something is severely wrong. And why this is, the money in govt given by the super rich is. What is a millionaire going to do with an extra 100,00? or a billionaire with 1,000,000 they get off the top? nothing really. What is a guy like me that makes under 100,000 a year going to do with an extra couple of gran? A lot more. We live in a economy driven on consumption, however the middle class has given all it's got and more, and now credit is likely or already has gone. If anyone needs money to spend it's the middle class, otherwise the 2 percent at the top won't have what they have for long.
the middle class has been paying back their debt. what the middle class needs is business. they need customers to go into their stores. they need people to by the goods they produce. they dont need credit.
really? Doesn't seem to be the highest. Maybe if the goal of companies in the US was to make money and growth it wouldn't be a problem. If a company wants to pay less taxes let them leave, we don't need 'em. Others will fill their place. But don't take jobs away from good workers, fix the system so they get tax breaks on doing it, and stay. Oh and lets not forget when these companies you defend so much want to save a few bucks because we charge them so much, there's a huge slew of safety violations and poorer products.
where did you get that? can you link. i was going off of this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html this takes into account the state level taxes on top of the national taxes, combined to make the highest in the world. a critical bit of info your graph leaves out.
Oh and your last paragraph, I know, i wasn't advocating credit. I was saying that when people's income doesn't rise, and to continue their lifestyle they use credit. I mean with what I make now compared to what my parents made in the 70's I would be in the upper middle class, very comfortable. However now it isn't the case.
Wow Kuzi, before you blow a gasket, here is the full text of what you said, and what I responded to. This cut and paste editing is really getting old Kuzi
so is yours.
and yes, i did post that. i needed a line break. it should be more like this:
"the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this:
the Left define success based on how many people they have helped.
the right defines success by how many people dont need help."
there was a topic shift
laker1963:
There is a difference between you offended me and that was an offensive comment. I am pretty sure you know that as well, so why the Theatrics? You now challenge me to prove your statments untrue? Why, I assume it is what you believe, so for you it must be true. That doesn't make it a definative statement for the world at large however. I believe it is customary to prove statements that you make are true, if only to protect your credibility. If what you call discussion is to say anything I want no matter how rediculous, while challenging others to prove me wrong, then it is me who is not interested in continuing.
you dont have to continue. make your own decisions. i started the post with the statement: "for discussion purposes only" im not sure why you would think that i believe it is 100% to me. you assume a bit more than you should. it is an interesting concept that seems to be floating around conservative circles as of late. i point it out and say i find it interesting and all of a sudden you think that i believe it. i think communism is an interesting thought but i dont agree with that. things can be interesting while not capturing my heart.
laker1963:
Surely we all have a certain responsibility to keep things reasonable, and not to allow extreme statements be the starting off point of a real and honest discussion.
i disagree. sometimes extreme statements are the beginning of very good discussion.... especially when prefaced with "for discussion purposes only"
laker1963:
Please do me the favor of not blaming me for your departure from the political forums if you do indeed decide not to post here in the future. With what has been said in in these posts in the past, there is NO WAY that this thread is the reason for your decision. I don't deserve the credit or the blame for that. Man up and own your own decisions bro, c'mon.
im not blaming you. i am blaming the way the threads always end up even when you are not involved. i cant deal with that BS anymore.
im also not sure how telling me to "man up" isnt just more of the same. though you may have a roll, i assure you that you are not the cause. no one person is. it is what it is. nothing more.
Kuzi, you are again putting out half truths. Thomas J Stanleys book stated that only 20% got their wealth STRICTLY from inheritance. That means a person like Paris Hilton would not be in that 20%, despite the fact she would be a destitute wh*re without her parents wealth to assist her and fame to back her. That isnt 20%, thats a subjective number used to back up his premise and cited as a true piece of socioeconomic studies----which it is more of orchestrated finding.
Kuzi, you are again putting out half truths. Thomas J Stanleys book stated that only 20% got their wealth STRICTLY from inheritance. That means a person like Paris Hilton would not be in that 20%, despite the fact she would be a destitute wh*re without her parents wealth to assist her and fame to back her. That isnt 20%, thats a subjective number used to back up his premise and cited as a true piece of socioeconomic studies----which it is more of orchestrated finding.
Back what up Kuzi????? Read the godd@mn book, it says that the 20% is based SOLELY on inheritence. Thats the words of the author, how much more f*cking backup is needed?
PS....I also think you are confusing (purposely perhaps) the difference between the small business owner who made 1 million dollars----and spend 3/4 of it on labor, operating costs, ect....and the "uber rich" if you will, which is what Phobic, Laker, and myself often speak of.
PSS--------I gave you what you wanted, because we had this SAME discussion about the SAME book and the SAME quote over the SAME statistic a few weeks ago and I thought you were there talking about it then too. Just as I am sure you think my leftist repitition gets old, so does the B.S. and same tired arguments and stats that you throw out as truths.
paris's parents got their money somehow. they are still alive. if not her parents, then their parents. someone at some point earned that money.
and one could argue that paris SOLELY inherited her money. even you said she would be nothing without it. would she be able to make any of her own money without her inheritance? if she couldnt, then there is a good argument that she SOLELY inherited her money. did the author take that into account?
what is the "solely" statement based on? are you/the author telling me half truths as well? did she inherit 1% of her wealth and earn the rest? 10%? 50%? 90%?
if she makes only one dollar and inherits $900 million can we say that she didnt exclusively inherit the money? where is the cut off?
according to the link i posted, 80% STILL WORK for their money.
"80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own" THAT is not inheritance at all.
you talk about me telling half truths but YOU ignored what the author HIMSELF said.
see... this is EXACTLY the garbage im talking about. i asked someone to back something up ( a fair request in a debate) and i get cussed at. thanks.
If anyone would recongnize garbage Kuzi, I'm thinkin' it would be you. Kuzi, discussing things with you is like trying to hold a bowk of jello in your hands without the bowl. Just when you think you got it figured out, the **** runs all over the place. I can't count the number of times you have stated soemthing and then backed away from it when challenged. Did I say I believed it? Is one you have used many times. Why would you say something in a fashion which lends people to think that you are stating your beliefs only to back away from them? Perhaps you just can't allow yourself to be nailed down by your own words. You have constantly edited our posts, and when asked not to, have continued to. You have when doing this cutting job left out sections of posts, hacked them into parts which seem to make them say other things, or totally omitted parts that you didn't want to answer. You ask for proof, when some is provided you poo poo it. You don't discuss, or debate things half as well as YOU think you do. Nor do you do so with any integrity, or honesty. This is a joke... but it is NOT funny anymore. Try prcticing what you preach for a change.
And of course we all know those evil tax cuts are shifting the tax burden on the lower and middle class and giving the rich the biggest break!
Thank you for this info, end of story for me.
Thank Gypsy. I just get tired of hearing the Democrats talk about how the Bush tax cuts shifted the burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. That's a load of crap. You should see the graph that shows capital gains tax revenue after the tax cuts were put into effect... It DOUBLED... Yet the Democrats still keep telling us that the tax cuts increased the deficit when it was without a doubt out of control spending for the past decade that has put us in the hole.
And of course we all know those evil tax cuts are shifting the tax burden on the lower and middle class and giving the rich the biggest break!
Thank you for this info, end of story for me.
Thank Gypsy. I just get tired of hearing the Democrats talk about how the Bush tax cuts shifted the burden from the rich to the middle class and poor. That's a load of crap. You should see the graph that shows capital gains tax revenue after the tax cuts were put into effect... It DOUBLED... Yet the Democrats still keep telling us that the tax cuts increased the deficit when it was without a doubt out of control spending for the past decade that has put us in the hole.
If you really take the time to figure out why people think like this, and that being "the rich don't pay their fair share...blah blah blah"...the root cause is basically wealth envy. For example: a blog post by the Time's Joe Klein highlights this quote from a "greedy" businessman.
Barry [Sterling, founding partner of Iron Horse Vineyards] said he was deeply worried about the country. "I was born on the day of the 1929 stock market crash, so I've lived from the Great Depression to the Great Recession," he said, "and I must say I'm amazed by how little progress we've made. We stopped regulating. We dropped taxes to unsustainable levels. I spent a good part of my life in the 70% tax bracket. It didn't discourage me from working," he said, referring to the supply-side argument that lower tax rates spur enterprise. "It made me work harder. My father lived with 90% rates during World War II. I'm actually mystified by the greed now. I don't understand families like Koch brothers," he said referring to the Republican Tea Party bankrollers. "They have so much money. Why do they need more?"
Doesn't that sound suspiciously like the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" mantra from the Communist Manifesto? Just what business is it of Barry Sterling how much money anyone thinks they "need?" That is not for him to decide, and it is not for him to question.v
And here we go with these 90% and 70% tax bracket things again. The left is really pushing this ... trying to convince people that the evil rich actually used to pay that kind of a tax rate on their earnings. The fact is, folks that marginal tax rates of 70% did exist back in the day .. but that did not mean that rich people handed over 70% of their income to the federal government. Between the extensive loopholes and deductions that existed at that time, the effective tax rates - the percentage of income actually paid in taxes -- have never risen above 12%.
And what's this "mystified by greed" thing? Yup .. here we go with that "greed" thing again. A favorite word from the left. To a liberal a person who wants more wealth than a liberal believes he should be allowed to have is "greedy." The word exists for no purpose other than to be used as a weapon by the moocher class against the producers.
OK, so without going into graphs, or polls or any other form of data manipulation, ooops, I meant research, and please just answer one question I have asked before and never received the answer to.
In the last 50 years the Republicans have been in power much more and longer then the Dems. So why isn't the U.S. in better shape then they are? Did the Dems. just ruin what was a good thing since O'bama took over? I thought the last time the U.S. was in a budget surplus position was under Clinton?
I know the temptation will be to attack these questions, but will one of you please give me some explanation as an interested person from outside of the U.S. and it's politics? I really don't understand and am asking, seriously for some enlightenment.
OK, so without going into graphs, or polls or any other form of data manipulation, ooops, I meant research, and please just answer one question I have asked before and never received the answer to.
In the last 50 years the Republicans have been in power much more and longer then the Dems. .
Might not have gotten an answer because people probably are not sure what you are talking about... Dems have been in power more...not Republicans..., Might wanna do some more manipulation..errr I mean research before you start posting stuff as facts.
OK, so without going into graphs, or polls or any other form of data manipulation, ooops, I meant research, and please just answer one question I have asked before and never received the answer to.
In the last 50 years the Republicans have been in power much more and longer then the Dems. So why isn't the U.S. in better shape then they are? Did the Dems. just ruin what was a good thing since O'bama took over? I thought the last time the U.S. was in a budget surplus position was under Clinton?
I know the temptation will be to attack these questions, but will one of you please give me some explanation as an interested person from outside of the U.S. and it's politics? I really don't understand and am asking, seriously for some enlightenment.
Yea, I'm with Kreig on this one, you are mistaken that the Republicans have been in control more than the Democrats... Check the history again. Also during most of the budget surplus of Bill Clinton, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate... I know those facts are hard to manipulate to fit your point of view, but it's true. Democrats have controlled congress for 36 of the last 50 years.
OK, so without going into graphs, or polls or any other form of data manipulation, ooops, I meant research, and please just answer one question I have asked before and never received the answer to.
In the last 50 years the Republicans have been in power much more and longer then the Dems. So why isn't the U.S. in better shape then they are? Did the Dems. just ruin what was a good thing since O'bama took over? I thought the last time the U.S. was in a budget surplus position was under Clinton?
I know the temptation will be to attack these questions, but will one of you please give me some explanation as an interested person from outside of the U.S. and it's politics? I really don't understand and am asking, seriously for some enlightenment.
Yea, I'm with Kreig on this one, you are mistaken that the Republicans have been in control more than the Democrats... Check the history again. Also during most of the budget surplus of Bill Clinton, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate... I know those facts are hard to manipulate to fit your point of view, but it's true.
Krieg:
laker1963:
OK, so without going into graphs, or polls or any other form of data manipulation, ooops, I meant research, and please just answer one question I have asked before and never received the answer to.
In the last 50 years the Republicans have been in power much more and longer then the Dems. .
Might not have gotten an answer because people probably are not sure what you are talking about... Dems have been in power more...not Republicans..., Might wanna do some more manipulation..errr I mean research before you start posting stuff as facts.
That's funny. You two seem to be saying the oposite thing Puro. But I'll leave that, as it speaks for itself.
Krieg your chart shows that the Republicans have held the Presidency 18 time to the Democrats 15 times. Where I went to school 18 is bigger than 15. I guess you are left to splitting hairs on this one and now the party who holds the Presidency is no longer considered the party in power?!
Comments
the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously. a concept that i found interesting was this: the Left define success based on how many people they have helped. the right defines success by how many people dont need help.
There is a difference between you offended me and that was an offensive comment. I am pretty sure you know that as well, so why the Theatrics? You now challenge me to prove your statments untrue? Why, I assume it is what you believe, so for you it must be true. That doesn't make it a definative statement for the world at large however. I believe it is customary to prove statements that you make are true, if only to protect your credibility. If what you call discussion is to say anything I want no matter how rediculous, while challenging others to prove me wrong, then it is me who is not interested in continuing. Surely we all have a certain responsibility to keep things reasonable, and not to allow extreme statements be the starting off point of a real and honest discussion.
Please do me the favor of not blaming me for your departure from the political forums if you do indeed decide not to post here in the future. With what has been said in in these posts in the past, there is NO WAY that this thread is the reason for your decision. I don't deserve the credit or the blame for that. Man up and own your own decisions bro, c'mon.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01424:
the bail out was a huge mistake. i agree with you there.
what you are talking about here is corruption issues, not taxation issues. what i am talking aobut is taxation issues. there are too many issues to break down here. many of them have less to do with taxes and more to do with corruption. many of them have to do with violating rights. many of them have to do with past success rates leading us to believe it wont work in the future. there are many arguments here. if we are going to talk taxes, then talk taxes. you are just all over the board here. you are asking a question that people have been asking since government was first created. the basic question is this:
what if there were no evil people?
its just a pipe dream.there are evil people.
the job of a good, just government is to uphold the rights of the people. right now the government is violating rights. and its sad. what are you advocating then? just taking the money from the non-rights violating rich? im not sure what you are getting at here. taxing them more isnt going to help you any more. the middle class has been paying back their debt. what the middle class needs is business. they need customers to go into their stores. they need people to by the goods they produce. they dont need credit.
i was going off of this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html
this takes into account the state level taxes on top of the national taxes, combined to make the highest in the world.
a critical bit of info your graph leaves out.
The graph was just from wikipedia.
http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
http://indianblogger.com/highest-income-tax-rate-countries-–-top-10-list/
Oh and your last paragraph, I know, i wasn't advocating credit. I was saying that when people's income doesn't rise, and to continue their lifestyle they use credit. I mean with what I make now compared to what my parents made in the 70's I would be in the upper middle class, very comfortable. However now it isn't the case.
i needed a line break. it should be more like this:
"the idea of the right ignoring the lower class is a concept that the left likes to push forth as an attack to strike fear into the lower class. "the right wants to take away your help! they are EVIL!" this is a scare tactic much like the ones that are pointed out previously.
a concept that i found interesting was this: the Left define success based on how many people they have helped. the right defines success by how many people dont need help."
there was a topic shift
you dont have to continue. make your own decisions.
i started the post with the statement: "for discussion purposes only"
im not sure why you would think that i believe it is 100% to me. you assume a bit more than you should. it is an interesting concept that seems to be floating around conservative circles as of late. i point it out and say i find it interesting and all of a sudden you think that i believe it. i think communism is an interesting thought but i dont agree with that. things can be interesting while not capturing my heart. i disagree. sometimes extreme statements are the beginning of very good discussion.... especially when prefaced with "for discussion purposes only"
im not blaming you. i am blaming the way the threads always end up even when you are not involved. i cant deal with that BS anymore.
im also not sure how telling me to "man up" isnt just more of the same. though you may have a roll, i assure you that you are not the cause. no one person is.
it is what it is. nothing more.
And of course we all know those evil tax cuts are shifting the tax burden on the lower and middle class and giving the rich the biggest break!
and one could argue that paris SOLELY inherited her money. even you said she would be nothing without it. would she be able to make any of her own money without her inheritance? if she couldnt, then there is a good argument that she SOLELY inherited her money. did the author take that into account? what is the "solely" statement based on? are you/the author telling me half truths as well? did she inherit 1% of her wealth and earn the rest? 10%? 50%? 90%?
if she makes only one dollar and inherits $900 million can we say that she didnt exclusively inherit the money? where is the cut off?
according to the link i posted, 80% STILL WORK for their money.
"80% are what you'd call nouveau riche: first-generation millionaires who earned their cash on their own"
THAT is not inheritance at all.
you talk about me telling half truths but YOU ignored what the author HIMSELF said.
Kinda like Walmart
Kuzi, discussing things with you is like trying to hold a bowk of jello in your hands without the bowl. Just when you think you got it figured out, the **** runs all over the place.
I can't count the number of times you have stated soemthing and then backed away from it when challenged. Did I say I believed it? Is one you have used many times. Why would you say something in a fashion which lends people to think that you are stating your beliefs only to back away from them? Perhaps you just can't allow yourself to be nailed down by your own words.
You have constantly edited our posts, and when asked not to, have continued to. You have when doing this cutting job left out sections of posts, hacked them into parts which seem to make them say other things, or totally omitted parts that you didn't want to answer.
You ask for proof, when some is provided you poo poo it. You don't discuss, or debate things half as well as YOU think you do. Nor do you do so with any integrity, or honesty.
This is a joke... but it is NOT funny anymore. Try prcticing what you preach for a change.
If you really take the time to figure out why people think like this, and that being "the rich don't pay their fair share...blah blah blah"...the root cause is basically wealth envy. For example: a blog post by the Time's Joe Klein highlights this quote from a "greedy" businessman.
Barry [Sterling, founding partner of Iron Horse Vineyards] said he was deeply worried about the country. "I was born on the day of the 1929 stock market crash, so I've lived from the Great Depression to the Great Recession," he said, "and I must say I'm amazed by how little progress we've made. We stopped regulating. We dropped taxes to unsustainable levels. I spent a good part of my life in the 70% tax bracket. It didn't discourage me from working," he said, referring to the supply-side argument that lower tax rates spur enterprise. "It made me work harder. My father lived with 90% rates during World War II. I'm actually mystified by the greed now. I don't understand families like Koch brothers," he said referring to the Republican Tea Party bankrollers. "They have so much money. Why do they need more?"
Doesn't that sound suspiciously like the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" mantra from the Communist Manifesto? Just what business is it of Barry Sterling how much money anyone thinks they "need?" That is not for him to decide, and it is not for him to question.v
And here we go with these 90% and 70% tax bracket things again. The left is really pushing this ... trying to convince people that the evil rich actually used to pay that kind of a tax rate on their earnings. The fact is, folks that marginal tax rates of 70% did exist back in the day .. but that did not mean that rich people handed over 70% of their income to the federal government. Between the extensive loopholes and deductions that existed at that time, the effective tax rates - the percentage of income actually paid in taxes -- have never risen above 12%.
And what's this "mystified by greed" thing? Yup .. here we go with that "greed" thing again. A favorite word from the left. To a liberal a person who wants more wealth than a liberal believes he should be allowed to have is "greedy." The word exists for no purpose other than to be used as a weapon by the moocher class against the producers.
"Long ashes my friends."
In the last 50 years the Republicans have been in power much more and longer then the Dems. So why isn't the U.S. in better shape then they are? Did the Dems. just ruin what was a good thing since O'bama took over? I thought the last time the U.S. was in a budget surplus position was under Clinton?
I know the temptation will be to attack these questions, but will one of you please give me some explanation as an interested person from outside of the U.S. and it's politics? I really don't understand and am asking, seriously for some enlightenment.
link
"Long ashes my friends."
Krieg your chart shows that the Republicans have held the Presidency 18 time to the Democrats 15 times. Where I went to school 18 is bigger than 15. I guess you are left to splitting hairs on this one and now the party who holds the Presidency is no longer considered the party in power?!