- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
so RightinNYC
why don't you take the promises that were made in the debate over the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and present your own authoritative evidence that they did just what they promised?
I simply cannot find any.
Because I'm not the person who started a thread claiming that I could prove something. Do your own research.
So you cannot even support your own position with anything more than an opinion?
You see, I have done the research. I have looked. And I cannot find anything which supports the idea that cutting taxes on the top 2% of people translates into jobs for the rest of us. Such figures do not exist because the reality supersedes the ideological theory and belief.
My only position so far is that you and FilmFestGuy don't understand a fairly basic principle of logic.
Oh, well if you say so!
You are unfamiliar with the concept of revolution?
Screw logic. And theory. And opinion. And belief systems. And axioms. And anything else other than hard and cold facts.
Facts are useless without the cognitive capability to understand and interpret them.
Oh I do not mind your fancy understandings and interpretations. I can even accept your high opinion and axioms. Just please give me the facts first that you base them on.
Grant - you are aware of events like The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution where the rich were the victim of the mob - right?
You are unfamiliar with the concept of revolution?
from Turtle Dude
What is the purpose of the rich then? And I would love to see objective authoritative sources backing up whatever you may opt to claim.
To relieve the poor of there money
from Turtle Dude
What is the purpose of the rich then? And I would love to see objective authoritative sources backing up whatever you may opt to claim.
in a free country such a stupid question would not need asking.
Well please oh teacher of law and government, give us the short answer then.
The future is a blank slate upon nothing is yet written. History tells us that when society becomes too far tilted towards the rich and powerful that there is a correction. Sometimes that correction can take place within the peaceful guidelines of the established order. Sometimes it does not. I believe the book ANATOMY OF A REVOLUTION explains this far better than I could.
And according to the samples i just read these revolutions, with the exception of the American Revolution (so far) turned to dictatorships and chaos. If any Americans are planning a revolution they had best consider the possible consequences first.
I see people here... and not just here ... but on sites like this and in bars and colleges all over the land who believe so deeply in ideology. They subscribe to isms and axioms and belief systems. To me, that is all crap.
Sure it is, but these are students, they are in the learning process. Expect them to have dimwitted opinions..
i happen to think that America is a really neat place... maybe the place place ever. And I think the key to that is a thriving and large middle class which is the straw that stirs the drink. And I shudder and want to cry when I see the middle class shrinking and the gains of the 20th century under attack all in the name of goddamn ideology.
Of course the middle class will shrink as the government grows larger. That is to be expected. And that is the biggest reason why taxes have to be kept at a moderate level, as do services. It wasn't Socialism that made America great, and where the middle class became the largest in the world. But turn left and the middle will shrink because it has to. Even if the government were to take all the money from the rich it wouldn't be near enough to pay for what the government spends in one week.
I see people here and elsewhere who worship money like a god and think that we are still in the late 18th century.
And that is their right, just as it is your right to ignore or abstain from wealth. You are free to move in either direction, or stay just where you are.. That freedom, and consequent responsibility, is a difficult thing for many to accept, once they get dependent on the government looking after them,
They kiss the posterior of the rich and crave to be rich themselves so they can piss upon the rest of us. I see people talk about the problems of the lower classes but probably have not spent a day being a minority at any time in their life in any situation. I feel sorrow for these people and I feel contempt for them.
Perhaps you should just ignore them and get on with your own life.
The rich don't exist for any purpose, they are just there, like any economic class. This is like asking why rocks exist or why air exists. It just does.
The rich exist to relieve the poor of their financial burdens.
The rich exist to relieve the poor of their financial burdens.
what do the poor pay in return for such grand service?
My take on why the 2000's had such low growth coming out of the recession
High personal debt levels for the middle class, an expanding trade deficit, and concentration of wealth at the highest levels being the primary factors
High personal debt prevents savings and investing by the middle class in most cases, and it limits consumption that would spur economic growth. Alan Greenspan encouraged Americans in the early 2000s to take out home equity loans to further consumption as a means to spur economic activity.
The trade deficit, money leaving the US for goods and services is of course money that is not going to be used to create economic activity in the US.
Last but not least, and does partially explain why the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy did not produce noticable results. Wealth has been concentrating in the hands of the wealthy for the last few decades, and dramatically so in the last couple. There is a realistic limit to the consumption a person can do (unless the very wealthy all want to build billion dollar homes like one of the owners of Reliance in India has done). This then requires them to make investments to spur economic growth, but they are not required to make investments that will produce productive jobs in the US. If they are not investing in projects that produce productive jobs in the US, or consume more that will create jobs as well, then the tax cuts will not spur on economic growth in the US
Argue against a flat tax. We who pay most of the taxes tire of dems buying votes by calling for our taxes-and our taxes alone to go up and up and up when we get no additional benefits for paying more and more and more
democrats gain power by spending our money on their voters. If the dems were to cut social spending they would lose their power to buy the votes of those who get more from government spending than they pay in taxes. SInce the dems won't cut their own throats, we have to cut taxes.
When democrats support policies, it's buying votes, when republicans support policy, it's not. This is one of those retarded whines that people keep making because it's easy and requires no real thought to formulate, but never understand why it doesn't get taken seriously by any one else except those others on the extreme.
rich people don't exist for the purpose of funding your socialist dreams. and the fact is states with high taxes are losing wealthy tax payers. and when Sweden had massive taxes, most of their star athletes moved to monte carlo. SO you can attack me personally because you are jealous and ignore the point I was making which had nothing to do with me personally
I disagree. We tax the rich to help the poor and stabilize society, but that is not why they exist. Their existence is a result of human nature. However, this lack of purpose does not make taxation unjust.
The poor pay taxes too. And they pay more in relation to their buying power.
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?