None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[CrusaderFrank]

"In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйств&#1086. Any of the following defined a kulak:[1][6]
use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income"."

Sounds Deanian, no?

Kulak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[zonly1]

Yep. So why are we so keen to spread it around the world?

Libs want democracy Conservatives want a Constitutional Republic ruled by law not the majority.

So that last excuse the right gave for invading Iraq was just bull crap?

Congress didn't vote to go to war over in Libya.

 

[whitehall]

Rich? The nationalist socialist democratic party (sound familiar?) tells us that $250,000 gross income officially puts us in the rich category. Some Mom an Pop stores make that in a year. According to the modern nazis, everyone but illegal immigrants who rates as rich or close to it should bend over because the government has the power to confiscate wealth and by God that's what they intend to do.

 

[Oldstyle]

False. I didn't imply Libertarianism was the same, on the contrary it was implied that Libertarianism is different than both. I just brought up Libertarianism to show someone why Conservatism isn't about freedom so to demonstrate that I said contrast Conservatism with Libertarianism (a true ideology of freedom) to find out why Conservatism isn't about Libertarianism.



You're confused because I don't fall in line with the establishments false left-right paradigm

Depends. Do you believe in the entirety of Conservatism, or just the economic policies? If you're just fiscally Conservative and not socially, then what's your social policy views?

If you support fiscal Conservatism and social Liberalism, for the most part you're a Libertarian. But then why call yourself "Conservative?"


.

The only people that believe in the "entirety of Conservatism" are people like you who believe "your" take on what being a conservative means.

By "entirety of Conservatism" I simply meant the economic and social aspects of Conservatism. I didn't mean every single view espoused by every major Conservative.

Political ideologies have two aspects, economic and social/personal. It's not wrong to ask if you support just economic Conservatism or if you support economic and social Conservatism.

I call myself a conservative because unlike you I understand that conservatism embodies a wide range of individual view points.

I acknowledge that, yes there is a wide range of individual viewpoints that vary among people of different ideologies. I'm just asking if you consider yourself socially Conservative or not.


.

I would say that I'm socially moderate...or as they were referred to in the old days...a Rockefeller Republican.

 

[Mr. H.]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

I've been out of town all day and am too lazy to wade through 24 pages of posts, so I'll cut to the chase on these two comments...

Republicans never apolgized to BP.

Oil companies do not receive subsidies.

 

[GWV5903]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

Amazing ain't it?

What's amazing is how naive you are and how senile Buffett appears...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Libs want democracy Conservatives want a Constitutional Republic ruled by law not the majority.

So that last excuse the right gave for invading Iraq was just bull crap?

Congress didn't vote to go to war over in Libya.

No we didn't...

The last war congress approved was Korea..


That was fucked up...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

Anyone who earns over $250k per year in in Obama's gun sights.
So please cut the bullshit.
That includes sole proprietor small business. A vast majority of whom put 80% or more of their gross revenue back into their business.
These people will pay the extra Obamaconfiscation ( hey that's pretty good....Obamaconfiscation) based on their GROSS earnings..Not the net. This will put many small businesses in trouble. Some may close. While others will cut back on employees or even decide that few extra jobs or whatever the business does, they will do just enough to stay under the magic Obamaconfiscation threshold. Why would'nt the
US Chamber of Commerce give to the GOP.....They are pro business. The democrats are anti business.
Most oil compnay subsidies go to small independent US based companies so that they can compete with the large international firms. Without those subsidies, many American oil producers would go out of business.
"It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state"

You have no proof of that. We can state very clearly that the New Black Panthers sent jack booted billy club carrying thugs to GOP districts and intimidated those voters.
Just because a democrat loses a seat that the dems have held for a long time to a republican does not mean there was voter suppression of democrat voters. They candidate LOST....That's why there are fucking elections.\
Class warfare is a relatively new political phenomenon. Maybe 20 years old...That's it.
Now, if there's nothing else...

 

[Oldstyle]

You're really clueless. You don't raise taxes in a recession. That's Economics 101. Your guy Obama wants to raise them on people making over $200,000. If he got his way this already weak economic recovery would grind to an immediate halt.

You've got it backward.

The correct formula is one does not reduce taxes in tandem with launching a major military engagement, such as the Iraq invasion and occupation, which is what Bush did. By restoring the tax rate of Bush's "base" of super-rich cronies Obama will be correcting what in fact was a deliberate and very bad mistake.

The effect of raising taxes on the rich will be a redistribution of hoarded wealth, via a jobs program, into the hands of those who will re-circulate-- which is what the stagnant U.S. economy desperately needs.

you aren't taxing the "hoarded" wealth.... that has already been taxed...you will be taxing earnings going forword....

or are you proposing retroactively taxing people....

"Hoarded" wealth? I love how progressives come up with new negative descriptions to try and demagogue the wealthy as much as possible right before you attempt to strip them of the money that they have earned. Taxes are not supposed to be a method for the redistribution of wealth and attempts to make them so run the risk of killing what made this country great in the first place.

 

[Oldstyle]

I have a better question for the brain dead lefties:

Why do you only hate on the rich when they ideologically oppose you?

Why is Immelt and Soros exempt from your wrath?

I don't know any liberals who "hate" the rich.

I take it you're new to the board?

 

[oreo]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

The top 10% earners in this country already pay 95% of the entire tax base of it. And the top 5% pay 67% of the 95% while there are 47% of the working class that because of deductions --specifically mortgage interest rate deductions--making 40K to 60K per year pay no federal income tax what-so-ever.

So do you really want to discuss FAIRNESS in that--because I sure don't see any?

As we see again today--OBAMA is out there again threatening corporations aka business in this country with higher taxes. He has done it now for 3-1/2 years--and our economy is in the tank over it. In return they have tucked in like a turtle and are waiting for this Obama threat to leave.

One Big Ass Mistake America.



"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

 

[thereisnospoon]

You've got it backward.

The correct formula is one does not reduce taxes in tandem with launching a major military engagement, such as the Iraq invasion and occupation, which is what Bush did. By restoring the tax rate of Bush's "base" of super-rich cronies Obama will be correcting what in fact was a deliberate and very bad mistake.

The effect of raising taxes on the rich will be a redistribution of hoarded wealth, via a jobs program, into the hands of those who will re-circulate-- which is what the stagnant U.S. economy desperately needs.

you aren't taxing the "hoarded" wealth.... that has already been taxed...you will be taxing earnings going forword....

or are you proposing retroactively taxing people....

"Hoarded" wealth? I love how progressives come up with new negative descriptions to try and demagogue the wealthy as much as possible right before you attempt to strip them of the money that they have earned. Taxes are not supposed to be a method for the redistribution of wealth and attempts to make them so run the risk of killing what made this country great in the first place.

The entire premise is based on the belief that it is proper to take from others because "they have to much"...
The Left looks upon taxation not as a means to increase revenue but to punish.
After all "it just isn't fair for some to have so much while others have so little.
The idea of fairness as far as the Left sees it is to ensure equality of outcome.
That is incompatible with a freedom loving society.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why did Buffett become such a fucking tool for the most anti-business, anti-American POTUS ever?

 

[oreo]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

Anyone who earns over $250k per year in in Obama's gun sights.
So please cut the bullshit.
That includes sole proprietor small business. A vast majority of whom put 80% or more of their gross revenue back into their business.
These people will pay the extra Obamaconfiscation ( hey that's pretty good....Obamaconfiscation) based on their GROSS earnings..Not the net. This will put many small businesses in trouble. Some may close. While others will cut back on employees or even decide that few extra jobs or whatever the business does, they will do just enough to stay under the magic Obamaconfiscation threshold. Why would'nt the
US Chamber of Commerce give to the GOP.....They are pro business. The democrats are anti business.
Most oil compnay subsidies go to small independent US based companies so that they can compete with the large international firms. Without those subsidies, many American oil producers would go out of business.
"It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state"

You have no proof of that. We can state very clearly that the New Black Panthers sent jack booted billy club carrying thugs to GOP districts and intimidated those voters.
Just because a democrat loses a seat that the dems have held for a long time to a republican does not mean there was voter suppression of democrat voters. They candidate LOST....That's why there are fucking elections.\
Class warfare is a relatively new political phenomenon. Maybe 20 years old...That's it.
Now, if there's nothing else...

In Obama's new Jobs plan--the income level he has his sites on his 200K.

When Democrats start talking about raising taxes on the RICH--the middle class should RUN for cover.



"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

 

[MikeK]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

Damn straight! Those 50% of Americans who are paying zero taxes need to step up and get some skin in the game.

The largest segment of that fifty percent of Americans you've referred to would be happy to step up and get their skin in the game and resume paying taxes -- if there was a game for them to get into. The problem is the corporatists whose interests you serve have been so effective at exporting jobs to foreign countries, which they've accomplished by bribing legislators to alter or remove formerly preventive regulations, that there simply is no work for that massive and increasing segment of your fellow citizens. So instead of picking on them for something they have no control over you should be addressing the reason for their misfortune.

 

[MikeK]

Today, the rich build factories, employ peasants, pay them for working to produce products (goods and services) to sell to others.

Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

You seem to think only the rich are capable of providing work for others when the fact is tens of thousands of small businesses that formerly employed two or three people have been swallowed up by monopolistic corporations, many of which are increasingly exporting jobs and importing cheap foreign-made products thereby eliminating the need for American workers. America is being transformed into a corporatocracy.

Adding tax burdens to the already overburdened rich will not produce more jobs for the poor. Dipsticks with a static view of the economy have no clue how it really works.

Taxes are imposed on profits, not on operating capital. So raising taxes has absolutely no effect on hiring to fill available jobs. The only reason you believe otherwise is you've been brainwashed.

 

[Charles_Main]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

I for one am not defending Billionaires. If you want to raise taxes on billionaires cool, I am with you. What I want to make sure of is that people making between 200k a year and say about 800k a year are not over burdened, as this group includes the vast Majority of Small Businesses that employe most of us.

You guys like to play word game, you ask for tax increases on people making over 200k, and then say were defending Billionaires when we don't support it.

 

[Charles_Main]

Today, the rich build factories, employ peasants, pay them for working to produce products (goods and services) to sell to others.

Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

You seem to think only the rich are capable of providing work for others when the fact is tens of thousands of small businesses that formerly employed two or three people have been swallowed up by monopolistic corporations, many of which are increasingly exporting jobs and importing cheap foreign-made products thereby eliminating the need for American workers. America is being transformed into a corporatocracy.

Adding tax burdens to the already overburdened rich will not produce more jobs for the poor. Dipsticks with a static view of the economy have no clue how it really works.

Taxes are imposed on profits, not on operating capital. So raising taxes has absolutely no effect on hiring to fill available jobs. The only reason you believe otherwise is you've been brainwashed.

You clearly do not understand how a S class cooperation Operates, and how they are taxed.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

Damn straight! Those 50% of Americans who are paying zero taxes need to step up and get some skin in the game.

The largest segment of that fifty percent of Americans you've referred to would be happy to step up and get their skin in the game and resume paying taxes -- if there was a game for them to get into. The problem is the corporatists whose interests you serve have been so effective at exporting jobs to foreign countries, which they've accomplished by bribing legislators to alter or remove formerly preventive regulations, that there simply is no work for that massive and increasing segment of your fellow citizens. So instead of picking on them for something they have no control over you should be addressing the reason for their misfortune.

What "restrictive regulations?" meanwhile, Democrats are doing everything possible to open the flood gates for illegal immigration.

No one can take Democrats seriously when they're talking about jobs. The only ones they're concerned about are the jobs of union thugs working for the government

 

[bripat9643]

I for one am not defending Billionaires. If you want to raise taxes on billionaires cool, I am with you. What I want to make sure of is that people making between 200k a year and say about 800k a year are not over burdened, as this group includes the vast Majority of Small Businesses that employe most of us.

You guys like to play word game, you ask for tax increases on people making over 200k, and then say were defending Billionaires when we don't support it.

Why wouldn't you defend billionaires? What has any billionaire done the requires defending, worked hard and made a lot of money? Don't they have the same rights you have?

After we throw billionaires to the wolves, then they'll be coming after the millionaires and then the rest of us. Once you accept the principle that some people are sacrificial animals, then we all become fair game.