Miguel17
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 88
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
1) Keeping the Bush/Obama tax rates for the "middle class"
2) sticking it to the rich with a tax hike
the war on poverty wasted billions, spent more than the entire worth of the fortune five hundred, created massive intergenerational dependence and massive numbers of robotic dem voters (which was the purpose al along)
Thanks for the far right view of poverty reduction.
A free market lets people suffer enough that they can no longer afford to give the rich their money, and hence the rich eventually suffer their own dominance in a truly free market, and it destabilizes and resets.
It's the blended (capitalist/communist) system that preserves the wealth/power gap, by making both the powerful and powerless happy. The powerful remain happy because their dominance is guaranteed, and the powerless are happy because their basic needs are guaranteed. The only real weakness of the blended system is the national debt. When that finally catches up to us, the whole game is over. Do you honestly doubt it will ever catch up to us? Or are you just praying it won't be in your lifetime?
A free market lets people suffer enough that they can no longer afford to give the rich their money, and hence the rich eventually suffer their own dominance in a truly free market, and it destabilizes and resets.
It's the blended (capitalist/communist) system that preserves the wealth/power gap, by making both the powerful and powerless happy. The powerful remain happy because their dominance is guaranteed, and the powerless are happy because their basic needs are guaranteed. The only real weakness of the blended system is the national debt. When that finally catches up to us, the whole game is over. Do you honestly doubt it will ever catch up to us? Or are you just praying it won't be in your lifetime?
I have no idea what you are talking about. What I see is a working class that has suffered enough to decide there is no longer a reason to continue to allow the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
The system you describe, free market without any government oversight doesn't exist,
Now, we do have a problem with the winners we have today setting the rules, and this stacking the game in their favor.
Goevernment is suppose to curtail that a little more than it has been. Because of the money relationship between the haves and politicians, both feeding each other, it is very difficult for government to hold this in check. I think you see this based on your post. What hurts is the middle class, which without the entire game does fall down. With a smaller middle, the illusion of anyoen can be rich becomes harder to swollow. The few exceptions become seen for what they are, exceptions. We need a strong middle class to make the system work.
Then let me tell you something I believe in completely: a strong middle class relies on neither the rich nor the government.
Thats not what the rich tell us...they tell us we have to cut their taxs so they can create middleclass jobs...you sir live in lalaland like so many other blind partisans....dispute this fact...
In the last 20 yrs the richest americans and corporations have had their tax responsiblity cut fully in half....guys like romney making millions pay less a percentage than people making 300,000...corporations like GE pay zero in taxs.
While the rich enjoyed massive tax cuts and and offshoring most of their money to avoid taxs....they were outsourcing millions of decent paying jobs...putting middle class america OUT OF WORK and not able to pay taxs....your entire post is hyperbole...
you make lots of assumptions from an obvious position of ignorance. how do you know that another 30-50K in taxes is not going to affect lifestyles.
what makes people making a few hundred K a year any different than people in the upper middle class who are one medical emergency or firing away from being way over extended.
the tax is not based on how much money you have left over but what you take in and if you spend a lot-bought a big house based on the Bush tax rates, have three kids at Amherst or Cornell etc you don't have much extra
People like you think that the "rich" only have the same monthly expenses you do which is idiotic
If you want the wealthy to continue creating jobs, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy need to be renewed.
What jobs are the wealthy creating? Could you explain please.
Dispute what fact? I never suggested we should believe whatever bull**** the rich are telling us today. My previous comment stands. A strong middle class doesn't suckle its strength from a strong federal government or from the rich themselves. A strong middle class stands on its own. How can a middle class be considered strong if it utterly relies on something much greater than itself to be sustained? That is the opposite of strong. That is called "dependent."
You're either drunk or you're carelessly misusing the term 'hyperbole.'
Try this simple experiment: go to a wealthy neighborhood and seek work, now go to a poor neighborhood and seek work. In which neighborhood did you find more work? I tend to get 95% of my work from those in the wealthier neghborhoods, you may have had a different experience; please feel free to share that with us.
The current tax rates should stay as they are until the federal government proves that they are willing to cut spending significantly.
But, given the Democrat's reluctance to cut any spending...except for the military...I have no hope that we will ever achieve a resolution for our dilemma. At some point our government's financial situation is going to fold like a house of cards.
I have explained before that I have worked with and for nationally known very wealthy CEO. If he needed you, you could receive a decent salary. Not one based on his, but one based on the commodity that you represent. His salary was based on what he could get. For example a CEO can get a portion of the income that is generated by renting back the company logo from a Cayman Island company.Try this simple experiment: go to a wealthy neighborhood and seek work, now go to a poor neighborhood and seek work. In which neighborhood did you find more work? I tend to get 95% of my work from those in the wealthier neghborhoods, you may have had a different experience; please feel free to share that with us.
Wow what a deep thinker you are. Think about this...the rich spend all they want regardless of tax rates and the extra revenue from theri taxes going back to normal wil get spent too. That is how we grow.
I have explained before that I have worked with and for nationally known very wealthy CEO. If he needed you, you could receive a decent salary. Not one based on his, but one based on the commodity that you represent. His salary was based on what he could get. For example a CEO can get a portion of the income that is generated by renting back the company logo from a Cayman Island company.
It's also interesting to to be in Sun Valley when the meeting is held there. You get to see the wealthy up close.
On average, spending stops increasing based on higher income at around $100,000. The rest is generally hoarded, and doesn't go back into the economy. The extra revenue that the upper class obtains beyond that tends to just get shuffled back and forth within that top class, and doesn't pay for making things, building things, paying people's salaries... Nothing. It goes into a black hole and never comes out.
Wow what a deep thinker you are. Think about this...the rich spend all they want regardless of tax rates and the extra revenue from theri taxes going back to normal wil get spent too. That is how we grow.
Grow what? The economic miracle of taxing "the rich" a bit more will fund the federal gov't (at current spending levels) for about 8 days, creat NO jobs and still leaves 357 more days of 40% federal deficit spending. It fixes nothing, except feeding the federal gov't appetite for more borrowing, spending and taxation.
Well that's not what I described.
I would love to sit down with you and Catawba to a game of Monopoly. Hell I'd even supply the scotch and stogies. Because welfare policies are akin to getting a $500 every time you land on a property of someone else who already owns half the board and has, for the most part, already won the game, and what they charge breaks your bank once again. There's no escaping this scenario, so long as you're persuaded to keep playing by the promises of meager handouts/bailouts every time you fall upon bankruptcy. That just prolongs the game that has already, for all real intents and purposes, ended.
Then let me tell you something I believe in completely: a strong middle class relies on neither the rich nor the government.
So how do you fix it with a guaranteed plan that we all would agree would "work"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?