Lookin' For That Apology...

[Foxfyre]

I see it pretty much as Gadawg sees it:

What the working 'poor' contribute to the economy:
1. Labor
2. Purchasers of goods and services.

The non working 'poor' who depend on government entitlements to live almost certainly are taking more out of the economy than they contribute to it.

What the 'rich' (those $250k up to a million or so folks) contribute to the economy:
1. They provide most of the jobs
2. Purchasers of goods, services, and capital investments for the their business.
3. Purchasers of capital - they drive the housing and other real estate markets
4. Primary funders of public services, roads, schools, parks, aesthetic enhancements.
5. Most of the charitable donations
6. Labor
7. Investments

What the 'very rich' (multi-millionaries and up) contribute to the economy in addition to the middle class group:
1. They provide a market for a lot of small business
2. They provide a lot of jobs
3. Purchasers of goods, services, and capital investments for their bsiness.
4. Provide most of the savings creating a pool from which other people can borrow.
5. Provide most of the investments that increase value and help grow small business.
6. Provide most of the venture capital for entreprenours to start small business or for existing businesses to expand product lines and services.
7. Provide most of the financing for big money projects such as sports stadiums, hospital wings, large scale museum exhibits, university facilities, large scale scholarship funds, and foundations.

The middle and high end groups also pay the huge lion's share of all the taxes paid into the U.S. treasury while the working and nonworking 'poor' (just under 50% of the population) pay little or nothing in federal taxes.

Take out that high end group or confiscate the wealth it generates and you will quickly find the middle group staggering which will invariably greatly add to ranks of the working poor and nonworking poor.

But hey that would really level the playing field by increasing the misery at the low end.

50% of the population are the non-working poor?

lol

Apparently nearly 50% are working or non-working poor according to the U.S. government as they are required to pay little or nothing in federal income taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know whether Trajan saw your question. I do know that the one thing our current fearless leaders don't seem to understand is that the only productive way to narrow the gap between the very rich and very poor is to encourage the very poor to become richer. Any attempt to achieve a better balance by making the very rich less rich will result in more of the very poor or will at least exacerabate their condition.

You realize that through all of this handwringing for the fortunes of the rich we're talking about raising the top rate from 36 to 39% (roughly)

right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know whether Trajan saw your question. I do know that the one thing our current fearless leaders don't seem to understand is that the only productive way to narrow the gap between the very rich and very poor is to encourage the very poor to become richer. Any attempt to achieve a better balance by making the very rich less rich will result in more of the very poor or will at least exacerabate their condition.

I look back almost 40 years, 4 of which I was in college not making any $$, and find it hard to believe that I have accumulated so much now.
However, what I do have I EARNED.
Most of the wealthy do not have their $$ in a sock drawer as many believe. They have their wealth working for them in the ecomomy and that is how they become wealthier.
Most of us that do make a lot of $$$ have saved most of it and that is how we became wealthy. Same with most all other wealthy.
Tax me more and I have less to invest in the things that have made me wealthy.
Folks, it is investment CAPITAL that grows the economy. Tax the wealthy more and the less investment capital there is to go around.
You get LESS of what you punish and taxes are punishment for productivity.
Just the way capitalism works. Never was intended to be fair. Fair is what comes around every summer and has a ferris wheel.

Then by your logic taxes should be lowered on the rich and raised on the un-rich.

Don't forget that this tax cut stimulus bill adds a trillion dollars to the deficit. The Bush years proved that we cannot pay the bills with tax rates where Bush put them.

It's that simple. And neither of the tax cuts Bush passed were needed. We were not in dire economic straits. We were not desperately trying to pull ourselves out of a severe recession. In short, there were simply no good reasons for the Bush tax cuts.

We were poised, in 2001, to actually pay down some of the 10 trillion in debt or whatever it was at that point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know what the phrase 'one of the biggest' means? And your stupid post doesn't list all programs.

It is not my post that is stupid....

1. Your feeble attempt to hide behind the phrase 'ONE of the biggest' is well past your usual infantile mode, and had gravitated to the dishonest...

2. Since I have documented- more than once- that the figure represents a mere 7% of the budget, it is cowardly and fraudulent to attempt to claim 'see- that's what I meant.." and think that will relieve you of admitting error, and begging pardon.

But- what one has come to expect from your side.

3. Some day, you will reach high school, which, for most folks is a four year period- although, I admit, for you it may take several times that to accomplish, and by your specious argument that four year period would be 'one of the longest periods of ones life.'

Actually, based on your ability- it probably would be 'one of the longest periods of [your] life.'


I can almost believe that you invented stupidity- rather than just perfected it.

"3. Some day you will reach high school.................."
is a petty grade school girl cat fight remark.
Typical for you.

She's a self-hater who engages in rhetorical self-mutilation to purposely make herself less attractive...

...quite successfully, too.

 

[Trajan]

Of course not.

excellent- so you do believe that there is an intrinsic value/ worth based on the/a individuals talent, skill etc. that is his and his alone? He/She achieves based on THEIR merit. Correct?

Do you believe the bigger the gap between the rich and poor, the better the condition of the nation?

you'd have to describe the gap and what effect it may or may not have, on balance I'd say no. but that is not the discussion if you want to kick that around we can do it when we have finished the discussion we are hopefully having now becasue you are getting ahead of yourself.

oh and I like you know, work? sorry I didn't get right back to you...I wasn't posting past your question....see?

 

[NYcarbineer]

excellent- so you do believe that there is an intrinsic value/ worth based on the/a individuals talent, skill etc. that is his and his alone? He/She achieves based on THEIR merit. Correct?




you'd have to describe the gap and what effect it may or may not have, on balance I'd say no. but that is not the discussion if you want to kick that around we can do it when we have finished the discussion we are hopefully having now becasue you are getting ahead of yourself.

oh and I like you know, work? sorry I didn't get right back to you...I wasn't posting past your question....see?

Then the government should not pursue policies that in any way facilitate increasing the gap between rich and poor.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know whether Trajan saw your question. I do know that the one thing our current fearless leaders don't seem to understand is that the only productive way to narrow the gap between the very rich and very poor is to encourage the very poor to become richer. Any attempt to achieve a better balance by making the very rich less rich will result in more of the very poor or will at least exacerabate their condition.

You realize that through all of this handwringing for the fortunes of the rich we're talking about raising the top rate from 36 to 39% (roughly)

right?

PLUS raising capital gains PLUS eliminating some of the breaks people selling or trading property have enjoyed for the past ten years. So that extra 3% becomes pretty ambiguous when you look at it within the big picture.

Already there are far too many things that encourage the very wealthy to take their capital and their enterprises and move them off shore into more business friendly environments. You add that 3% plus all the other provisions that go with it, and you give them a HUGE incentive to either leave the country with their business or hold on to all those trillions in capital they have had mothballed pretty much since Obama was sworn in.

 

[Trajan]

Then the government should not pursue policies that in any way facilitate increasing the gap between rich and poor.

I don't know what that has to do with this;

excellent- so you do believe that there is an intrinsic value/ worth based on the/a individuals talent, skill etc. that is his and his alone? He/She achieves based on THEIR merit. Correct?

 

[Foxfyre]

Then the government should not pursue policies that in any way facilitate increasing the gap between rich and poor.

Sure it should. It should eliminate all policies that in any way encourage people not to get an education, not to learn a trade, not to work for what they get, not plan and implement a strategy and goals.

It should eliminate all policies that discourage or hinder business and enterprise from expanding and innovating and inventing and taking reasonable risk so that there are jobs for every American who should want one.

I recently received this in my e-mail. No clue whether it is or isn't authentic, but if this became the norm in this country--it WAS the norm as little as 60 years ago--that gap between rich and poor would narrow dramatically within a decade.

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco, TX.
18 Nov 2010 --

Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese, and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza ..... get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings .... get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime, and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360 .... get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago when taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville, Texas

 

[Big Fitz]

First of all, this is not getting the government out of the way since every time the government goes deeper in debt it ties the fortunes, or misfortunes of the people ever more inextricably TO the government.

Interest on the debt is one of the biggest government spending programs we have. You phoney fiscal conservatives claim you don't like big government programs, but you support action after action that makes the government program of debt service bigger and bigger and bigger.

You phoney fiscal conservatives rant about the government 'raiding' Social Security, and yet this payroll tax holiday does exactly that...

...which should be the next sub-topic of conversation here. Why the fuck are you people supporting reducing the payroll tax?

Watch your language.

1. "...this is not getting the government out of the way..."
Of course it is. By holding the line on taxes, cutting Social Security taxes on both workers and employers, along with a two year guarantee, the government gives more security to the business community.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the reason that the Obama administration went with the deal is the implicit admission that lower taxes increases the possibility of less unemployment, and a better chance of his re-election.

You are implicitly conceding that the only way our economy can be sustained is for us to go deeper and deeper into debt.



You're equating this to Obamacare, and yet you're supporting it. That would be a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy. 'I'm supporting this because it's comparable to that Obamacare that I consider a disaster.' That is mildly insane.

You will find somewhere in this never-ending thread, my suggestions that the only way to ever, ever reduce the $13 trillion debt is to lower taxes, lower spending, decrease red tape and regulation, and honor initiative and innovation, i.e. business.

First of all, since history has all but proven beyond a reasonable doubt that neither party will cut spending, your 'program' is unworkable.'

Interest on the debt is one of the biggest government spending programs..."
Wrong.
Let's take this year's interest, as per Obama 2011 budget: $251 billion.
The budget is $3,575.94
Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Do the math.

The interest on the national debt was over 400 billion dollars in 2010.

Interest on the debt looks to be about 4th in size on that chart. You want to argue that fourth biggest doesn't qualify as one of biggest? You want to tell me I'm wrong again?

Notice anything special about those numbers? What areas are rising dramatically?

HHS (Unconstitutional vote buying handouts from the 30's and 60's)
Labor (Can we say union kickbacks?)
Agriculture (Corporate farm, 'green' energy and Agcorp subsidies)
Education (Unconstitutional and union kickbacks)
State (Bribes to make people our friends overseas)
Energy (Gotta shut down them dangerous coal plant and put up inefficient wind)
Justice (lawsuits to destroy industry is expensive)
Veteran Affairs (Damn pesky wars keep getting people wounded)

Does anyone else see a glaring pattern here? I sure as hell do. All traditional liberal sops.

 

[Big Fitz]

Anyone notice that the more both sides 'compromised' on this Stimulus II bill,

the more expensive it got?

This may be the post of the year.

Because the compromises were to satisfy everyone that their pet constituencies would get their fair share of the money tree that was being chopped down,

somewhere in Szechuan province I think it was this time.

I think I need a hug and a good cry.


... I had to posrep NYCarbineer.

 

[Dr Grump]

HHS (Unconstitutional vote buying handouts from the 30's and 60's)
Labor (Can we say union kickbacks?)
Agriculture (Corporate farm, 'green' energy and Agcorp subsidies)
Education (Unconstitutional and union kickbacks)
State (Bribes to make people our friends overseas)
Energy (Gotta shut down them dangerous coal plant and put up inefficient wind)
Justice (lawsuits to destroy industry is expensive)
Veteran Affairs (Damn pesky wars keep getting people wounded)

Does anyone else see a glaring pattern here? I sure as hell do. All traditional liberal sops.

Any other generalisations with no lack of proof you want to post?

 

[Big Fitz]

No, I'm good. So's the theory unless you have evidence to disprove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This may be the post of the year.

Because the compromises were to satisfy everyone that their pet constituencies would get their fair share of the money tree that was being chopped down,

somewhere in Szechuan province I think it was this time.

I think I need a hug and a good cry.


... I had to posrep NYCarbineer.

I guess I should have said that in my first post in the thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know what that has to do with this;

excellent- so you do believe that there is an intrinsic value/ worth based on the/a individuals talent, skill etc. that is his and his alone? He/She achieves based on THEIR merit. Correct?

I don't know what that means. Sorry.

Just for a perspective check, let's keep in mind when we're lamenting the soaking of the rich we've really only been talking about whether that top rate was going to be 36 or 39%.

 

[Trajan]

I don't know what that means. Sorry.

I need to post every line of the conservation so you can follow it?

Just for a perspective check, let's keep in mind when we're lamenting the soaking of the rich we've really only been talking about whether that top rate was going to be 36 or 39%.

Just for a perspective check, let's keep in mind cap gains, dividends , child tax credits etc. will expire, estate tax will go from zero to uber massive...you are focused on one aspect of this.

 

[Big Fitz]

Because the compromises were to satisfy everyone that their pet constituencies would get their fair share of the money tree that was being chopped down,

somewhere in Szechuan province I think it was this time.

I think I need a hug and a good cry.


... I had to posrep NYCarbineer.

I guess I should have said that in my first post in the thread.

we'd have had more to agree with, that's for sure.

BTW, after hearing what's going on with the Omnibus bill that you're decrying in this thread, I'm now with you. It needs to die. It's so pork laden in it 2000 pages people should be brought up on charges! It's unconscionable and with the Food Safety bill being shoved into it from the senate, unconstitutional too.

 

[The T]

I think I need a hug and a good cry.


... I had to posrep NYCarbineer.

I guess I should have said that in my first post in the thread.

we'd have had more to agree with, that's for sure.

BTW, after hearing what's going on with the Omnibus bill that you're decrying in this thread, I'm now with you. It needs to die. It's so pork laden in it 2000 pages people should be brought up on charges! It's unconscionable and with the Food Safety bill being shoved into it from the senate, unconstitutional too.

Yep. Another huge power grab.

 

[Trajan]

well if we have moved on to the 'budget' bill, I agree it must be denied, IF the reps go along, I am done with them.

 

[Big Fitz]

well if we have moved on to the 'budget' bill, I agree it must be denied, IF the reps go along, I am done with them.

NOTE!!!!!!


The congress voting for this is NOT the new congress. It is full of the bastards that have been throwing out and they are getting their revenge.