If taxes are not raised on the rich......then the current incoming Republican class will be voted out.......Dave
Here we go again.
My preference would be to eat them roasted and served with a nice honey glaze.Being that they work so hard to create jobs for the rest of us, they may be a bit sinewy, but with 2 million more Americans soon to be left without unemployment insurance and increasingly strained food closets and soup kitchens, the rich could supply us with a food source for, oh say, at least a couple of years.After that, we can start eating the ones that carry water for the rich...you know who you are... ;-)
How about this, we eat the poor, you know the ones who consume jobs and never create any jobs and produce no tax revenue and leach on everyone else.Oh wait, that would be class warfare and hatred. No problem hating and warring against those who have done nothing wrong other than working their tales off, taking risks, taken personal responsibility for themselves, and done everything they are suppose to in the world so that the majority of the rest of the country can have jobs.You know ;) Right. Mustbefriday.Tinker
How about this, we eat the poor, you know the ones who consume jobs and never create any jobs and produce no tax revenue and leach on everyone else.I'm guessing your girls don't sleep all that well at night. :<)B
While I can't say that I find the Soylent Green (Green for money or mold?) approach attractive in either formulation, I do have to wonder about a couple of things.How exactly does a person consume a job? Even the unemployed create jobs for employment department workers and the like. Consume public money without contributing [money], perhaps, but jobs? How does an individual make a job go away?I also have to disagree about equating wealth with virtue. To be sure, there are some people of wealth who fit your description, but there are also a lot of people with inherited money, stolen money, money acquired by cheating and exploitation, etc.
My preference would be to eat them roasted and served with a nice honey glaze.Being that they work so hard to create jobs for the rest of us,Who are these "rich" people? Who made the decision that $250,000 defined rich?Just another ridiculous and specious argument by democrats in their efforts to seek a convenient mistruth.......But sure.....let's eat the rich......because they are the reason we have 10% unemployment and the acorn housing debacle and everything else that's wrong with the world. The rich are to blame for everything I don't have that I want. They should pay dearly for my shortcomings.And after we eat them, I guess most of us will die off anyway since there are not enough of them to feed off of after all........maybe we should define rich as anything over %50,000 per year?
<<<I also have to disagree about equating wealth with virtue. To be sure, there are some people of wealth who fit your description, but there are also a lot of people with inherited money, stolen money, money acquired by cheating and exploitation, etc.>>>Creating wealth is not virtue any more than the Invisible Hand is from Adam Smith. But you know what, it creates wealth, it creates jobs, and it demands personal respnonsibility.There is only one way not to succeed in the United States of America and that to not pursue personal responsibility and assume that someone else owes you a living.I am tired of all this class warfare. The "rich" now defined down to $200,000 per year are attacked with much more veracity than Islamic terrorists who are not confronted at all and instead are part of a "man-made disaster" to further strip any personal accountability even from the self-directed terrorist.Tinker
Who made the decision that $250,000 defined rich?That's simple, Republicans.Democrats (mostly) have made the claim that those who are in a better position to afford higher taxes should pay higher taxes.Republicans then proceeded to claim Democrats wanted to "tax the rich" and ultimately turned this into claims that Democrats define "rich" as $250,000 or $200,000.All lies of course, but the "decision" was largely a creation of Republicans.acorn housing debacle Another lie, but you knew that didn't you. :<)B
There is only one way not to succeed in the United States of America and that to not pursue personal responsibility and assume that someone else owes you a living.Tell that to my mentally disabled daughter.B
<<<Tell that to my mentally disabled daughter.B >>.Boy, you Libs are simple minded, do I have to put the proviso we always put in there, UNLESS YOU ARE MENTALLY DISABLED OR MENTALL ILL OR PHYSICALLY DISABLED OR PHYSICALL ILL.Jeepers, you'd think you would get that by now. Guess not. And as usual, straw man argument, not addressing the issue, not addressing the point, not addressing the problem, rather contributing to the problem as all you ever think about is why someone can't do something, never why they can do something and what is preventing them from doing something.Always a reason someone who is not MENTALLY DISABLED OR MENTALL ILL OR PHYSICALLY DISABLED OR PHYSICALL ILL cannot do something. Damg richies! Tax them to the stone age! even in the midst of a mild depression! They don't spend their money anyways, those dang richies!From Nancy Pelosi: Unemployment insurance creates economic activity that creates employment! But rich people don't spend their money and therefore don't create any employment!Lets talk on point once, and directly address the real problem instead of a constant straw man arguments, name calling, and anecdotal sob story.Tinker
This whole sloganmongering about "tax the rich" has nothing to do with anyone's definition of rich. To someone making $15K or even $50K a year, $250K sounds impossibly rich beyond dreams. To someone making $250K a year, especially places like the Bay Area, it can seem like just getting buy and that one would have to be making at least $1M to feel rich. And, I suppose that if you are making $1M, but spending most of it, that it can seem like $5M or $10M or more was necessary to feel really rich ... and even then there are lots and lots of people above one.The issue is entirely one of whether it is a sound idea to persist all the tax breaks, which is clearly going to put pressure on the deficit, or some of them, or none of them. None would be best for the deficit, but seems like a bad thing to do in the current economy. Some is a compromise. Whether that break is $250K or $500K or $1M doesn't have anything to do with who is or isn't rich by some definition ... it has to do with deciding who can afford it and what impact that might have.Arguing about whether $250K is rich or not is just stupid rhetoric. Arguing about whether people who make $250K can afford to pay a little more and what negative economic impact that might or might not have versus the impact on revenues is the only thing that really matters in this issue.
You have to keep putting that in there exactly because there are many definitions for who can and can't contribute and how much they can contribute. You allow some exceptions, but not others ... and yet some of those others may realistically be no more capable of being meaningful contributors than someone who is officially disabled.
<<<The issue is entirely one of whether it is a sound idea to persist all the tax breaks>>>There are no tax breaks! The tax levels have been in place for 10 years! Before that they were higher for about 6 years. Before that they were lower for about 14 or 15 years.NO ONE IS GETTING A TAX BREAK, NO ONE! We are talking about tax INCREASES ONLY!The question is, should we raise taxes in the midst of an economic mild depression?And this has nothing to do with the deficit at all. Obama does not want to raise taxes on $200K and up to raise money for the deficit. If so, he would not have permanently bloated the Federal bureacracy by 25% in the last 2 years instead of a one time stimulus. It is simply class warfare, redistributing the wealth. More money to spread around.So lets call it what it is. None of this money will go to reducing the deficit (assuming it actually even raises any more money). It is all about "fighting for the middle class" and buying votes. You are correct, $200K as rich is a meaningless phrase. It is put out there because Democrats want to create class conflict and voter anger to create a voting block, and be able to spread that wealth around, nothing more than that.A nation dependent on its government for its basic necessities. No one able to make it on their own without government benefits appears to be the ultimate goal here, even if it causes everyone to get poorer in the process.Tinker
Tinker, this is more sloganmongering. The breaks were written as breaks for a specific period. If something isn't done, this is reversion, not increase. They will revert if nothing is done because that is the way the law was written 10 years ago, not because of any action being taken now. Very, very, very few people think it is a good idea to let the tax revert for everyone in the current circumstances. Neither party has that as their preferred position. The biggest risk of that happening is the Republicans being obstructionist.All this class warfare crap is just that, crap. They people who are going to vote this legislation are, by and large, very wealthy people. This is entirely a question of who can most afford it.
<<<and yet some of those others may realistically be no more capable of being meaningful contributors than someone who is officially disabled.>>>No human being is exactly equal to another. Not everyone is fit or suited or even wants to go to college. Not everyone is fit or suited or even wants to run their own business. But you know what, every able bodied and able minded American can take care of themselves without having to steal from their neighbor for this benefit or that benefit and be resentful that neighbor x has $y more than he does.What you advocate is taking the wealth from everyone that has more and giving it to those who have less. Sure you say, that is not what you say now. But think about it. $200K is now called rich. 5 years from now, $200K will be inflated downward, 10 years from now you will be screaming for those rich people who make $150K (even further inflated downward) to pay their fair share.1/2 THE COUNTRY PAYS 0 INCOME TAX! For crying out loud. Don't tell me now that able bodied Americans should be subsidized not to work up to their abilities to support themselves because people who have worked harder, worked smarter, done what they are suppose to do, have more money than they do.Lets make not working pay, shall we. They will sure incentivize people to actually take some responsibility for themselves. Get a little skin in the game.For crying out loud! Human beings survived in the wild without any government at all. Now we are told we are too weak and feeble to even get a job to support ourselves! if we are able bodied and not mentally ill.Tinker
<<<All this class warfare crap is just that, crap. They people who are going to vote this legislation are, by and large, very wealthy people. This is entirely a question of who can most afford it. >>>No its not. It is about creating jobs and growing the economy because that is the only way to outside of truly draconian spending cuts that we will ever get the deficit under control.The reason I stated "those who consume jobs" is because Liberals tend to think the economy is a fixed pie and static. Raise tax rates on x and that leads to a linear rise in tax collections. They never consider the loss in economic output.Look at the stimulus bill, spend this trillion, get 3 trillion in economic return. But it does not work like that. The only way a job is created that will create real tax revenue to pay off the deficit is when a real and substnative economic opportunity is there that entices someone on a risk/reward scenario to invest in it. The higher taxes are, the wors that risk/reward becomes, and the fewer such opportunities people will be enticed to take.On the radio the other day a caller asked why were not the job creators creating jobs. He saw it as a moral issue, the evil rich, not creating jobs.I don't know, I have a few million to spend, and I'm attacked as mean and evil and rich, with uncertainty as to the cost of what an employee will cost, what the capital gains rates will be, what my tax rates will be, what my energy costs will be, etc., I might just decide to keep buying all this government debt instead and sitting on it. Which is precisely what is happening. You want to tax energy to reduce its use. What do you think happens when you tax income and tax investment? You get less of it. You don't care, because you think it is morally correct to do so. Transfer the wealth.That is what it comes down to in spades. It is just covered up in language of deficit cutting, which is absurd. There is no deficit cutting about any of it.Tinker
After that, we can start eating the ones that carry water for the rich...you know who you are... ;-)
Tamas,we know who the rich are.....they make plenty north of $250k.....Tinker,I want to see you survive in the wilderness....that should be very amusing.....MustBeFriday.....very funny.....with ketchup?....do we eat the water carrier as well???Duma.....rah rah siscumbah.....Dave
Choicest parts on the water carriers are their soft little spines and their dainty little "yes sir" voice boxes.We turn the feet and hands into tallow...too many callouses from running with buckets.
Who on earth writes about eating the rich and their servants? I put you on ignore but your posts still show. A while back you made a comment aboug general welfare being in the preamble, and your friend voiceinthedin chimed in. "General Welfare" means anything done by the government benefits it's entire population. If the citizens of Virginia pay taxes for a canal in New York and don't get any benefit, that is not "general welfare." General welfare does not have to mean it's entire population will have a safety net and income will be distributed. "General Welfare" was a term drafted by Benjamin Franklin and Franklin was anything but a socialist. He did have some writings I have found that showed he was in favor of progressive tax, but I have seen NOTHING that show he was in favor of "welfare type" laws (they did not call such programs "welfare" back then).Look at this letter by James Madison on why he vetoed a "Public Works" bill. It's right there: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htmIf he could not justify a public works bill from the "general welfare" clause I don't think it would be a surprise if he were to veto Obamacare.
Boy, you Libs are simple minded, do I have to put the proviso we always put in there,Yes it would help, especially when you make "simple minded " statements like "there is only one way".anecdotal sob storyI could tell you a bunch of stories about Elizabeth and none would fall under the classification of "sob story". Stories of bravery, hard work, basic decency and inspiration all come to mind however.Near the top would be a story about how she handles the bully's from school. You know the kids that believe they are superior, when in reality they are mostly "different" because of an accident of birth.Honestly when Dad hears about incidents his initial reaction is to go beat the little a-holes into a bloody pulp. Elizabeth takes a much more grown up approach to the subject. "I just ignore them Dad, they are the ones with the problem".Fortunately, most of the kids grow up and get over their inflated sense of self worth & accomplishment, sadly some never do. B
Tinker, usually it is Duma who launches into rants based on no data and you who at least tries to be reasonable, but I'm afraid you are being Duma-like here. I didn't advocate anything. I didn't say how the problem should be solved. You assume that I am in favor of a lot of things that I am not or just assume that I am in favor of something where I don't pretend to have an answer.It reminds me of this fellow who used to do gardening work for my mother. He had some health problems in the form of emphysema and it was pretty clear that his IQ was not too stellar. His plus was that he didn't charge very much and would try to do just about anything. His downside was that he was highly unreliable in terms of both showing up and in the quality of work he would do -- pruning was high risk. He was constantly short of money and would keep trying to borrow some. Periodically he would go off to relatives in Georgia to try to get better work, but that never seemed to work. So, here's a person that is trying, but basically constantly failing and likely to keep failing until it is permanent. I believe his wife was not capable of work due to some medical issue and his son is a chip off the old block.I don't pretend to know what the right answer is for someone like that. I don't advocate society supporting him and I suppose that you think he is a great guy for continuing to try. But, it is also a pattern of constant failure. Hardly glorious. Hardly American Dream stuff.
Again, distressingly Duma-like in your assumptions about what I mean and believe in ... just a little less ranting than an original Duma post.I would suggest that you not only assume that those who advocate something different than you are simplistic in their beliefs to the point of stupidity, but in advocating your position you are simplifying in the other direction. E.g., there is this persistent Laffer curve thinking that somehow we are always right at the tipping point or past it and any tax increase will necessarily reduce tax revenue. Empirically, that is dubious since taxes have historically been higher than they are now. Even if the idiots in Congress were to fumble around to the point that the Bush cuts expired, all they would do is to return to where they were previously. One would almost think the ideal tax rate was 0%.
Again, distressingly Duma-like in your assumptions about what I mean and believe in ... just a little less ranting than an original Duma post.What a piece of work you are tamass!You better provide data to back up your claim because you sound rather slanderous to me.Your Obama Internet Army strategy exposed:1) Blame everyone else and blame them often.2) Cast aspersions but claim not to.3) Kill the messenger and claim facts that you never presented.4) Try as hard as you can to influence people to your extremist viewpointWhat we have here is a bunch waste being bantered about by you and a bunch of flies gathering around to join your wasted efforts.Anyone with any common sense can see through your obfuscation and hypocrisy. You have moved to a new level of shame and ad hominem attacks.......what a joke!
Tell that to my mentally disabled daughter.B Sorry to hear about the struggles for your daughter B.But, I have no idea why that issue was relevant to the "taxing the rich" thread.........
Sorry to hear about the struggles for your daughter B.But, I have no idea why that issue was relevant to the "taxing the rich" thread......... It was certainly relevant to this statement.There is only one way not to succeed in the United States of America and that to not pursue personal responsibility and assume that someone else owes you a living.B
Thereby demonstrating my point...I'm sorry if you find my description offensive, but it seems to me to be accurate. You rarely are interested in discussing any actual points which I make. You frequently ascribe positions to me which I not only have never taken, but don't hold. You claim to *know* things about me which I have repeatedly told you are incorrect ... not just color labels and membership in fictional organizations, but simple, verifiable facts. You even attempt to belittle my contributions on non-political threads.
There is only one way not to succeed in the United States of America and that to not pursue personal responsibility and assume that someone else owes you a living.B Why have you chosen to personalize this B?No doubt your daughter's challenges are real but you fortunately have the resources to assist her in practically every way.The theme was "taxing the rich" and not a claim against assisting those who are truly in need. I think Tinker was speaking in general terms and not all inclusive terms so let's not turn this into an "exception" free for all.There was a time when people/families/neighbors turned to each other instead of the government to fix/assist with their problems. The government cannot fix everyone's problems especially this one.
You rarely are interested in discussing any actual points which I make. You frequently ascribe positions to me which I not only have never taken, but don't hold. You claim to *know* things about me which I have repeatedly told you are incorrect ... not just color labels and membership in fictional organizations, but simple, verifiable facts. You even attempt to belittle my contributions on non-political threads. What a real mess you are!
There was a time when people/families/neighbors turned to each other instead of the government to fix/assist with their problems.Yes, but they did so because they had no other choice. Sometimes it worked, when those resources were sufficient; often it didn't because those resources were insufficient. The result was a great deal of suffering. Let's not romanticize the past.
Why have you chosen to personalize this B?It was in no way personal it was simply a response to a factually incorrect statement.The theme was "taxing the rich" and not a claim against assisting those who are truly in need.I think Tinker was speaking in general terms and not all inclusive terms so let's not turn this into an "exception" free for all.I agree he was generalizing, unfortunately his generalization is nearly as wrong with regards to the "normal" population as it would be if he were talking specifically about the disabled.There was a time when people/families/neighbors turned to each other instead of the government to fix/assist with their problemsTrue and it worked pretty well for some, others not so much, but in any case things change and IMO we also need to change to reflect that.The government cannot fix everyone's problems especially this one. If by "this one" you are referring to Elizabeth then you should know.Nobody asked!B
The government cannot fix everyone's problems especially this one.No, I was referring to the Obama government.......not your daughter. Problem is the personalizing is not appropriate for this thread or any other for that matter.Let's not go down the road of hard feelings about personal issues that are none of this community's business.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cutsEven Obama seems to see the wisdom at this particular time.
Even Obama seems to see the wisdom at this particular time. The wisdom of an ever increasing deficit?Leave it to politicians to agree to compromise."We'll just give money to everyone".I don't know which I dislike more politicians with no spine, or politicians with no morals. :<(B
Wisdom of the political necessity not being the same thing as actually agreeing with the idea.
Leave it to politicians to agree to compromise."We'll just give money to everyone".I don't know which I dislike more politicians with no spine, or politicians with no morals. :<(Compromise is Good......use to be "greed" but we need compromise now.What this does:1) Improve job outlook2) Expand tax base (if 1 occurs)3) Reduce costs (unemployment, healthcare medicaid, etc.)I would think, companies and investors open up a bit now that they don't feel the pressure to hunker down further.Quite frankly B, I would suspect that if the government "SPENT" wisely, fewer people would object to taxation. But what we have witnessed this past year was a grotesque fiduciary violation of the public trust.It has occurred before in other governments but this was recent Pelosi/Obama/Reid was so messy and dirty that it still makes people skeptical of this government.Compromise is good....embrace it!
Wisdom of the political necessity This has got to be some sort of world record. Three consecutive posts that included the word "wisdom" when discussing politicians.Sadly, it falls under the classification of "Most absurd combination of two words." :<)B
Compromise would be more interesting if both sides were doing it.
Who on earth writes about eating the rich and their servants?Oh heavens! You have completely misunderstood me! I am not interested in eating the servants of the rich! The servants of the rich are usually illegal immigrants that are being paid under the table to mow lawns, cook meals and wipe the noses of the golden babies of the future aristocracy! They work very hard for next to nothing and because of that they are usually underfed and muscular...not very yummy at all.No...once we are through picking the bones of top 10% that own 90% of the country, then we will start in on their apologists. You know the ones. They call talk radio programs to espouse Ayn Rand, supply side economics and other bits of mumbo jumbo. They aspire to being a part of the top 10% percent club, but they will never get there because the country club doesn't admit "their kind". They are the "water carriers" not the "servants".I'm sorry if I alarmed you by my post.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |