Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real question is why do middle class Americans twist themselves into a pretzel trying to protect the privileged status of the elite who have lawyers and lobbyists to do that for them?
Because the Republicans are really successful at propaganda, and the Democrats are focused more on their little special interest groups than the broad middle class.
Quote:
When the taxes of the rich are reduced the burden falls on everyone else who is less able to absorb that burden.
According to the GOP, lowering the taxes of the rich means that they'll "create jobs."
Whenever the results don't pan out, they look to blame something else -- "Too many regulations!" "Too much uncertainty!" "Blame Fannie and Freddie!" etc. etc.
Basically, to them the "problem" is whatever can be conveniently blamed on the Democrats.
We see how well over the last ten years that's worked, huh?
Right, exactly.
But like I said, the conservatives will come up with ANY excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their past positions. They cannot and will not ever admit that they're wrong, as if the decisions they made from 1980-2008 never even happened, as if everything was just a bed of roses until Obama came along and screwed it all up.
I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way home last night, and he was trying his hardest to make it sound like George W. Bush "warned us of the financial crisis," which is so far from reality that I almost started yelling at the radio. These guys are such blatant propagandists that it's not possible to treat them with respect.
The real question is why do middle class Americans twist themselves into a pretzel trying to protect the privileged status of the elite who have lawyers and lobbyists to do that for them?
When the taxes of the rich are reduced the burden falls on everyone else who is less able to absorb that burden.
What if we enact a fair tax (everyone pays the same %), and just don't spend money on useless programs like social security, welfare, UI, or military?
You are hopelessly deluded and caught in that "either or" "left-right" trap. First, I'm as far from being a liberal as anyone can possibly be, so your automatic assumption that I am just shows that you really aren't thinking for yourself .. you're just offering a conditioned response, similar to Pavlov's drooling dogs when they hear the dinner bell ring. But this trap is even more disastrous for folks like you who apparently don't even know their left from their right. My position on the matter is purely "conservative" if anything, but is not fashioned by the new definitions of liberal and conservative, given that they are indeed referring to extreme left, and slightly less extreme left.
My views have nothing in common with "liberalism" or " modern conservative clap trap" ... but are formed by common sense, and an informed understanding of the world as it actually exists, rather than how it is portrayed by the media talking heads. And instead of worrying about what poor people don't pay, and complaining about what wealthy people are paying ... the real problem lies in the vast gap that exists between that top 1% and other 99% of which you are a part of, even though listening to you suggests you don't even realize it. And it's pretty well documented now that this gap has been growing larger and larger at an alarming rate, and that's not good for anyone. This has nothing to do with jealousy or perceptions ... it's a reality ... and documented fact that can be measured, even for those too blind to recognize the "in your face" signs of it surrounding them.
The premise about "earning" is a subjective assessment in many instances .. since we have numerous examples of people who work their rear ends off and earn paltry amounts ... while others do very little while raking in huge sums, exceeding even their ability to spend. So this bit about "earning" must be measured based on one's "cleverness" in your opinion, since it couldn't possibly be about labor and effort, as there is no such amount of either that could conceivably earn "Billionaire" amounts of compensation.
And I'm OK with using "cleverness" as a guideline to measure "earning" so long as the outcome of that cleverness is a generally positive one. For example, if you become wealthy by means of starting a company, and growing it through your hard work and ingenuity ... providing a valuable product to customers and a source of years of employment for all of the company's many employees ... hey .. I'm all for that! I'm a capitalist, and a free market proponent, and I celebrate such success of American business ingenuity and entrepreneurship.
But when you grow a business based on the hard work and ingenuity of the domestic American worker, only to move that business to an off shore foreign country, displacing the very people that made that business a success, while choosing to exploit foreign slave labor to increase your already obscenely vast profits ... that's pure exploitation ... not cleverness .. and certainly doesn't describe "earning".
That old model of "earning" is a dying breed and a relative dinosaur in today's real world of transnational corporatism, crony capitalism and exploitation that is nothing more than big business becoming a parasitic entity feeding on the public at large, mafia style. So those top 400 "earners" in majority likely didn't earn squat, when their efforts involve exploitation, corruption, and harmful repercussions to the economic health of the entire system, as it is now showing to be.
We're witnessing today a system that is collapsing under the weight of it's own out of control corrupt criminal conduct, and wholesale looting. The financial sector is literally draining the life's blood out of the nation like a vampire, while providing no actual value at all, and there is nothing "conservative" about that.
Looking back on such criminal conduct of past failed states historically, you will find one form or another of leftist ideology behind every one of them ... whether it be an Empire ... Monarchical system .. a Dictatorship ... a Fascist System ... Communist System ... Socialist System ... all of them share one thing in common ... they are all authoritarian in nature, and they all eventually serve the interests of only those at the top, at the expense and often severe suffering of the rest. And they always meet the same fate ... they eventually destroy themselves, or they are suffer the consequences of revolt from those they chose to exploit and feed on. The parasite with an insatiable thirst will eventually kill it's host if not stopped, but in so doing, dooms itself, too.
And that's where we are now .... our problems have nothing whatsoever to do with poor people not paying their fair share ... it's only an imbecile who could believe that crap. Our problems, and that of the world as a whole revolve around psychopathic and self destructive levels of greed and corruption from the very top ... not from the bottom. And it amazes me that anyone fails to see this reality that literally is all around them.
And this isn't just an American phenomenon either ... as there really is no such thing as national loyalty at the top of the food chain anymore. Right now we have 1200+ Billionaires in the world that collectively hold more wealth than 5 of the 6 Billion people on the planet combined. And of the top 10 Billionaires, three (33%) are Americans .... the wealthiest of that top 10 is a Mexican named Carlos Slim Helu, worth 69 Billion ... who's country is one of most glaring examples of corruption and imbalance between the wealthy and poor. Trust me when I tell you that these 1200 Billionaires didn't "EARN" their Billions in the traditional, old fashioned way.
What's even more disturbing is the fact that these are the publicly visible mega wealthy ... there are others even more wealthy who remain invisible. It has been suggested that the Rothschilds hold anywhere between 50 and 200 TRILLION ... which makes Mr. Helu's 69 Billion seem rather paltry by comparison. And there are others, including the British Royal family that are worth upwards of 10 Trillion, give or take a a few hundred billion. Nobody really knows the extent of wealth held by the ultra mega wealthy like the Rothschilds because they are literally beyond the reach of any governing body with the authority to audit them. All investigators can do is go back 200 years or so, assess their known assets then, and calculate their likely holdings today. In any case ... they are at least in the multiple Trillion category
So go ahead and sing "God Save the Queen" if you're so inclined. But it's pure foolishness and a sign if severe mental impairment for anyone who does.
But if you really focus and educate yourself, you can figure out this left versus right thing, and once you do, this the up-down .. top-bottom thing will become much easier for you to grasp.
It's amazing how calling out jealousy pushed one to a 5000+ word diatribe on my delusions. You obviously don't give my posts more than a glance, as you cherry pick the choice points to attack, and then some.
As far as politics go; I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo in the middle that if the R&D (Ridiculous and Demented) political machines imploded in on themselves, I'd throw a month long party.
'
'
'
'
Hypothetically speaking: Let's say my Great-Great Grandfather worked hard and became successful, and passed that wealth on to my Grandfather. In turn, my Grandfather did the same by adding to it and passing it down to my Father, who passed it down to me, and I down to my sons, and they on to their offspring, and so on... you'd be hating my family. If you understood generational wealth, you'd also understand how generational poverty works. But it is obvious that you that conceptual awareness of such things is hindered. You probably quote Einstein and think you are, much like another poster in here. Do you understand the the concept of compounding interest? Think of the growing masses of poor as compounding (generational) poverty (welfare.)
Success is in the genes and in the way one raises their family. Sadly, only my Grandfather understood this, and because of him, this one man kept the next three generations firmly in the middle class. I'm hoping I'll be the one to propel my family up the ladder a bit further.
If I look down from heaven in a century or two, and my descendants are billionaires, and creating jobs for thousands of people, and earning a $hitload of cash...
I'll smile.
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-16-2012 at 03:01 AM..
Reason: discuss the topic, not other posters
Why do I care if some family in England or France or Saudi Arabia has a trillion bucks? Nothing prevented me from succeeding here. No mob guy shook me down. No skinny French guy with a pencil thin mustache ever asked for a cut or a bribe. The best thing I ever learned from rich people is how to make money.
When the US is a failed state like Mexico or Ethiopia and the poor are slaughtered by warlords and dictators and forced into servitude I'll join your cause. Nothing is more important than freedom. How you choose to exercise your freedom is your business. Some guys go to college and devote their lives to a company, a career, or a cause. Some skip college and do the same thing. Some get rich. Some really rich. Sometimes it's just plain luck. Most times it's slow, steady, disciplined decision making. Some guys just live a comfortable life. For most people that's enough.
Some guys make bad choices. They drink or get into drugs. They have kids too early or too many kids. They make consistently bad choices over time and reach a point where the hole they've dug is too deep. Then they join a forum and rant how the rich guy keeps them down.
We see how well over the last ten years that's worked, huh?
You're right, Bush should have done nothing and let the economy go into free fall so he could be a little child and blame Clinton for the whole time during his presidency.
That's not what presidents do though. They do what they think will keep them popular, ask Obama. The only president that willingly took a beating for an economic downturn knowing the economy would be stronger after was Reagan.
I happened to catch this from Mark Levin the other day, found it striking, and decided to look it up on line when I got home. Mark Levin
Economist Mark J Perry found this interesting factoid. According to 2009 IRS data, the 400 top taxpayers in 2009 shelled out $16.1 billion, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers totaled $19.5 billion in taxes, or less than 25% more.
Something to cite next time someone claims that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes.
Note also how inherently unstable this structure is. What happens if just a few of those 400 decide to take their money and go to some small offshore tax haven? Wouldn't it be more stable to have a much more broad-based structure instead of trying to drain so much dough from such a tiny group?
That's just insane that they made $81 billion. That $81 billion should have been split between the other 313 million Americans so that everyone of them could buy a couple of new pairs of shoes.
What if we enact a fair tax (everyone pays the same %), and just don't spend money on useless programs like social security, welfare, UI, or military?
First, the "Fair-tax" is an Orwellian term for a flat-tax, which isn't fair. Under a 10% flat-tax, people who make $20,000 a year pay $2,000 and people who earn $2 million pay $200,000 may seem fair except that it's easier for the millionaire to pay $200,000 in tax than the poor person to pay $2,000.
Second, you must be joking if you don't think Social Security; unemployment benefits; welfare or the military are useful.
We see how well over the last ten years that's worked, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
You're right, Bush should have done nothing and let the economy go into free fall so he could be a little child and blame Clinton for the whole time during his presidency.
That's not what presidents do though. They do what they think will keep them popular, ask Obama. The only president that willingly took a beating for an economic downturn knowing the economy would be stronger after was Reagan.
If you are claiming that the Bush tax-cuts were designed to prevent the economy from going into "free fall" you don't know anything about the Bush tax-cuts.
Those tax-cuts were founded in 1999 during Bush's campaign as a way to return the surplus to the people. Then when the recession hit, the same tax-cuts were sold as stimulus. Isn't that nice? Whatever the problem tax-cuts were the solution.
The tax-cuts did nothing but increase the deficits; defund the government and create more inequality while not stimulating the economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
